Thank you for taking time to peruse
this report, which I expect you will find shocking.

I
have only owned three English bulldogs over the last seven years,
two of which are registered pedigreed examples of the breed, and
whilst due to the grace of God, are healthier than most compared
with what I have observed at bulldog conformation shows and countless
photographs from such events over the years, these observations
have nevertheless collectively borne witness to the dire straits
in which the modern English bulldog finds itself at the wicked hands
of Man, but at absolutely no fault of its own.

The reader can access my homepage at www.gaiaresearch.co.za/bygonesbulldogs.html
for more information, but the current report deals exclusively
with the peer-reviewed scientific evidence-based crisis facing registered
closed-studbook bred pedigreed dogs as administered by the Kennel
Union of South Africa (KUSA) and their apparent inability to grasp
the seriousness of the situation and act in the best health and
welfare interests of the dogs themselves rather than the financially
vested interests of their breeder members and the income- and position-generating
institution that is the Kennel Union.

What follows is a chronological literature
review of the milestone research conducted into this topic over
the last 70-years, much, if not all of which appears to have escaped
the breeder’s, veterinarian’s and administrator’s
attention all this time, or alternatively has been deliberately
ignored so as to not have to face the shocking truth of this continuing
tragedy and so upset the cosy status quo of their smug ego comfort
zones. I have allowed for repetition, so as to indicate the occurrence
and strength of consensus. I end on page 26 with simply irresistible
castigation of a few noted worming individuals.

I have and continue to call for the
suspension of all awarding of breeders of such dogs until the amended
standards are adopted and implemented with training of new judges
not previously associated with what is violation of the rights of
all affected dogs this last century to the present. I for one
shall, on principle, refrain from entering my dogs until the new
dispensation is enforced. I caution the KUSA and by implication,
judges and show awardees, of their continuing culpability, and the
KUSA in particular, of legitimate claims for damages. Breeders and
owners of English bulldogs are entitled to have their dogs judged
by the official national country standard of the breed and as long
as the KUSA delay and so prevent this from taking place, such dogs
and owners are prejudiced.

Dr Charles Stockard (BS, MS,
PhD, MD), Professor of Anatomy, Head, Dept of Anatomy and Director
of the Anatomical Laboratories and the Experimental Morphology Farm
at Cornell University Medical College, New York, where he cross-bred
hundreds of dogs to study the inheritance of morphological characters,
was likely the first to study the genetic basis of the morphological
exaggerations and resultant disease conditions in English
bulldogs.

In his nearly 800-page manuscript documenting this
pioneering research over a decade, incomplete at his death, but
prepared for publication by the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and
Biology, with 128 text figures and 113 photographic plates, Dr
Stockard comparatively mentions the bulldog’s shortened
head and shorter legs and short, bent and “‘deformed’
screw-tail” and then more serious anatomical limitations,
where he stated:“The jaws
are powerful and wolf-like in most dog breeds, but in the
bulldog
are deformed and poorly suited for biting. In most breeds the teeth
are splendidly set and strongly developed, but in bulldogs,
they are ill-set and poorly developed”.(Stockard
C, ‘The genetic and endocrine basis for differences in form
and behaviour as elucidated by studies of contrasted pure-line dog
breeds and their hybrids, Am Anat Mem, No. 19, 1941)

Regarding the bulldog achondroplastic skull; its modified growth
and deformed development, Dr Stockard stated: “The
modified achondroplasic head of the prize bulldog
is a character depending upon the homozygous condition of several
genetic factors for its complete expression. The human stocky dwarf
is also round
headed or brachycephalic.
The nose bridge is flat and the palatal region shortened, causing
the mandible to protrude beyond the upper jaw and producing the
so-called undershot condition. The face is characteristically wide
and flat with sunken nasion, making the appearance commonly termed
‘dish-faced’”. Such a physiognomy is comparable
in every detail to the face of the bulldog.
The coccygeal vertebrae are fused and bent in direction in some
human dwarfs and resemble the like condition in the bulldogs”.(Stockard, 1941)

All bulldogs are now afflicted
with pedigree-selection - breeder-induced concentrated dwarfism
defective genetic mutations, just like many human dwarf
families are afflicted. (Photos &
caption added by Stuart)

Of great historical scientific significance is
that Dr Stockard pointed out that in discussing the
origin of dog breeds, “Charles Darwin stated
more clearly than in any other connection, his ideas of the possible
origin of species, through mutations, use-inheritance and selection”.
Dr Stockard quotes Darwin
as stating: “Some of the peculiarities characteristic of
the several breeds of dog have arisen suddenly, and, though strictly
inherited, may be called ‘monstrosities’;
for instance, the shape of the head and the under-hanging jaw in the
bulldog.
A peculiarity suddenly arising, and deserving to be called a ‘monstrosity’,
may be increased and fixed by man’s selection”.(Charles Darwin, ‘The
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication’, Vol. 1,
Lond, 1875); (Stockard,
1941)

Dr Stockard, referring to Darwin’s
insights further stated: “In the absence of modern knowledge
of mutations and the mechanism of inheritance, this statement of
60 years ago is remarkable. The origin and inheritance of the head
of the bulldog is keenly correct. We cannot explain
by crossing the origin of such extreme forms as thoroughbred bulldogs
unless we believe that forms characterized once existed in nature.
But hardly anyone has been bold enough to suppose this. It seems
to have originated from the Mastiff and it is highly probable that
it existed before 1630, though then of much larger size. We shall
find much evidence to indicate that careful selection of numerous
mutations was necessary in the development of the present day English
bulldog”.
(Stockard, 1941)

Dr Stockard stated: “The animal used
for bull-baiting and dog fighting a century ago in England was far
less deformed than our present day bulldog in which the mouth and
teeth are so defective as to make its biting ability very poor.
The English
bulldog has characteristically
extreme distortions in the growth patterns of the head, body and
tail, and certain defective conditions in the skeleton of the appendages.
The earliest bulldogs
were not so grossly deformed as the present day animalsbut
were more mastiff-like in character. The bulldog was originally
derived from a series of mutations which gave rise to structural
deviations, passing through a stocky mastiff type and from this
to the more highly modified bulldog through the addition of later
mutations”. (Stockard
1941)

When Dr Stockard discussed ‘Achondroplasia
of the Extremities’, he referred to “the growth
of the extremities and the quality of the leg bone, both structurally
and genetically”, but only to the “extremely short and
deformed legs of the Dachshund and the Bassethound breeds”.
The lines of Dr Stockard’s pedigreed and champion bulldogs
of that period were such that many still had relatively long legs
when he acquired his stock in the late 1920’s (see photos)
and to which offspring he accordingly correctly described, relative
in comparison to the aforementioned breeds thus: “The
English bulldog has short and stocky but straight
‘non-achondroplasic
legs’”.
(Stockard, 1941)

Dr Stockard stated: “The
legs of the English bulldog are short and sturdy
and the front legs are set far apart, making the chest appear extremely
wide and giving rise to the term ‘bench-legged’. Figure
1 (below) in is a good illustration of this condition in the legs
of a highly prized champion specimen, used in these experiments as
a sire. The legs are perfectly straight boned and show no evidence
of twist in growth and no overhang at the wrist or abduction of the
foot. In other words, there is no evidence of achondroplasic growth
in the long bones of the extremities in the bulldog.
This fact is of great interest since the skull, tail and at times
other regions of the axial skeleton show the most exaggerated conditions
resulting from pronounced chondrodystrophy”.
(Stockard, 1941)

Clearly Dr Stockard was not privy
to the show-circuit fashion trends and given that his conclusions
were formulated in the late 1930’s, he can be excused for
broadly extrapolating from his sound bulldog stock to showdogs generally.
[I have extracted Figure 1 from Plate 18 (page 93) & Figure
8 from Plate 1 (p41) to illustrate their nice long legs]

Some
actual pedigreed bulldogs studied by Dr Stockard. His champion
sire is on the left and a typical female is on the right.

Note the longer bodies, longer legs and smaller heads than
modern exhibits. Significantly these are relatively disease
- free.

Dr Stockard did however state:
“We must make some qualification in the statement that chondrodystrophy
in the bulldog is strictly confined to the axial
skeleton. The cartilage growth in both
the pectoral and pelvic girdles is affected. The labial cartilages
of the glenoid fossa on the scapula and of the acetabular fossa of
the pelvic bones are somewhat deficient, causing the fossae to be
abnormally shallow. In such cases the heads of the humerus and the
femur may be dislocated from the shallow sockets. This occurrence
is not rare in the bulldog but as a rule the sockets are sufficiently
deep to prevent easy luxation. The skeletons of adult bulldogs sometime
show dislocation of the shoulder or hip joint that was not apparent
in the living animals”. (Stockard
C, Am Anat Mem, No. 19, 1941) A review of the bulldog
veterinary literature today documents a very serious deterioration
of this sad state of affairs.

Clearly, as conformation and especially line breeders selected
for ever shorter legs, these defects were amplified. Dr
Stockard clearly foresaw the potential for achondroplastic
legs in bulldogs, since he rather unambiguously stated:“We have much evidence that short and stocky bone is more
completely affected in the presence of the achondroplasia leg gene
than is the long, slender type of bone. The heterozygous state of
a single factor dominant for short achondroplasic legs exerts a
considerably greater effect when acting on the bulldog
constitution than does even the homozygous double gene for this
dominant expression when acting on other severely affected breeds.
The influence of the factor for leg achondroplasia
differs in degree of severity depending upon the bone constitution
of the breed concerned. The bulldog
bone gives the most pronounced response”.(Stockard C)

Skeletons of 1920’s pedigree
English bulldog and pedigree Basset hound compared for achondroplasia.
This longer, more slender bone legged bulldog is relatively
free of this crippling Basset hound defect.
Unfortunately, the modern bulldog’s short legs now more
closely resemble those of the crippled Basset.

Note: Achondroplasia
is a "birth defect" because the syndrome of this disorder
is present at birth. Onset is in fetal life. Familial achondroplasia
is inherited as an autosomal-dominant gene. It is a failure disorder
of the growth of cartilage in the epiphyses of the long bones
and skull. It results in premature ossification, permanent limitation
of skeletal development, and dwarfism typified by a protruding
forehead and short-limbed dystrophy characterized by upper arms
and thighs that are disproportionately smaller than forearms and
legs. Features include: bowing of extremities, waddling gait,
limited range of movement of major joints. Prognathism may occur.
(Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary,
3rd edn, Elsevier 2007); (Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edn,
Elsevier, 2009)

In Section lll, Dr Stockard,
with contributions by Dr A. L. Johnson,
discuss ‘The Bulldog Achondroplasia Skull;
Its Modified Growth and Development’ and state:“The bulldog
typed skull is not confined to the dog species alone. A closely
comparable type of skull modification appears man himself. The bulldog-like
depression of the face and protrusion of the lower jaw as found
in the human race is usually confined to short, stocky, dwarfed
persons with abnormally shortened extremities. The behavior of such
persons is stolid and deliberate and the more intelligent
among them, strongly determined in their actions”.(Stockard,
1941)

Dr Stockard
stated: “Bulldog
skulls are very abnormal and highly aberrant in form, with pronounced
structural disharmonies.
The English bulldog possesses an extremely shortened
skull with a prognathous lower jaw and an abbreviated muzzle with
extremely shortened maxillary and nasal regions. Three different
aspects of the German Shepard Dog skull photographed with comparable
views of the English bulldog skull are shown in
Plate 50 (below). The Shepherd skull is in all aspects closely reminiscent
of the skull of the wolf. If these two skulls were found as fossils,
a paleontologist would hesitate to class them as belonging to any
one family of Carnivora”.

English Bulldog ? and German Shepard
Dog ? skulls compared. The latter resembles that of their ancestral
wolf.

Dr Stockard stated: “Bulldogs
show localized chondrodystrophy deformities at both the head and tail
ends of the axial skeleton, both distortions in cartilage growth.
The epiphyseal cartilages in the tail vertebrae of the bulldog fetus
are so dystrophic that the entire tail is deformed into a corkscrew-like
twist, and shortened to a few centimeters in length. The fusion and
shortening of caudal vertebrae bringing about a reduction in tail
length is separated genetically from the vertebrae deformity that
produces bending and twisting of the tail”.
(Stockard C, ‘The
genetic and endocrine basis for differences in form and behaviour:
as elucidated by studies of contrasted pure-line dog breeds and their
hybrids’, Am Anat Mem, No. 19, 1941)

Note:
My point in providing this early reference and detailed information
is to emphasise that these conditions have been long studied and
determined to be genetic in origin and hence to have been and remain
within the control of breeders. Little of pertinence appears to
have been published until the 1960’s, so we shall travel forward
to then.

It is interesting
to note that the 1960’s saw the first serious critique of
the direction in which showdogs were being led. It brings terrible
shame on those involved in pedigree dog breeding and conformation
shows that so little was done in ignorance of these concerns over
the ensuing five decades and that there remains such an arrogant
culture of denial and resistance, in the face of sincere and long-overdue
welfare reform of several breed standards.
In December 1962, ‘The Canadian Journal of Comparative
Medicine and Veterinary Science’ published an article,
author(s) anonymous, which appeared on 8 February
of that year in ‘The Field’
magazine in London, England.

The author stated: “Some
hard things are said, often in ignorance, about dog shows
and show dogs. We have aired occasional misgivings about
aspects of breeding dogs for the show bench. Where appearance is
to be the only ultimate criterion of value, defects may be tolerated
if they cannot be detected in the necessarily limited time for examination
by a judge in the ring. In the matter of physical failings, the
trained observation of the veterinary profession is highly relevant.
Vets are not, as a body, biased for or against any particular breeds.
Some of their recent statements have been very significant. One
of them was reported in a recent issue of ‘The Journal of
Small Animal Practice’. (Anon.
‘When a Vet Should Speak Out”, Can J Comp Med Vet Sci,
26(12), 1962)

The author continued: “An
article in this professional publication stated outright that the
Executive Committee of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association
had become ‘very concerned’ at the serious increase
in the number of pedigree dogs suffering from defects and abnormalities,
and by the corresponding increase in requests for surgical correction
of these faults. Significantly, the author of the article was Dr
S Hodgman, of the Canine Health Centre, Newmarket”.
[The Centre and the associated
Animal Health Trust, a veterinary charity dedicated to improving
the health and welfare of horses, dogs and cats, are still operational
today and specialises in cases too complex to be treated by local
veterinarians and require referral to world-class vets. The Centre’s
clinical and research experts work closely together to benefit not
only individual cases, but the veterinary profession as a whole,
internationally]

The author continued: “Dr
Hodgman’s central point was that there is strong evidence
that many of these conditions are hereditary.
The present situation may have arisen because of the ignorance of
many dog breeders of elementary genetics. Irrespective of the causes,
the alarming fact remains that the percentage of unsound stock is
on the increase. The object is to underline Dr. Hodgman's warning
of the growing unintentional encouragement of the depreciation of
pedigree blood-lines. As a distinguished vet, Dr.Hodgman
has frankly told his colleagues that a veterinary surgeon owes a
duty to his clients that goes beyond the treatment of individual
animals”. (Anon,
1962)

The author continued:
“Breeding from defective
animals not only destroys bloodlines, but discredits a breed both
at home and overseas. Unfortunately, this warning sometimes falls
on deaf ears. It is a great temptation to the owners of a champion
to disregard or deny any defects that are repeated in its offspring.
Their natural inclination is to keep quiet about the matter. There
is no suggestion that dog breeders and exhibitors are deliberately
dishonest. Their worst faults are ignorance and a disinclination
to face up to unpleasant facts”.(Anon. ‘When
a Vet Should Speak Out”, Can J Comp Med Vet Sci, 26(12), 1962)

Dr Hodgson referred to above
was a core founding member of the British Small Animal Veterinary
Association in 1957 and amongst his many accolades was in 1961 being
awarded (as Colonel) ‘The Victory Medal of the Central Veterinary
Society’, the oldest veterinary society in England, which is
awarded to a person who has rendered outstanding service either to
the Society or to veterinary science in general. Sir David Attenborough,
CVO, CH, CBE, FRS, was awarded the medal in 1996. Dr S J F Hodgman
was author of many landmark animal welfare publications in the early
1960’s that focused on hereditary canine defects. (Hodgman
S, ‘The duties of veterinary surgeons in attendance at championship
dog shows’, Brit Vet J, 117(5), 1961); (Hodgman S, ‘Abnormalities
in pedigree dogs: Their surgical correction, related to Kennel Club
Rules and Regulations’, J Small Anim Pract, 2 (1-4), 1961);
(Hodgman S, ‘Abnormalities of possible hereditary origin in
dogs’, Vet Rec, 74(46), 1962)

Dr Hodgman
(MRCVS) stated:“The preliminary
results of an investigation into the existence of certain deleterious
conditions that are hereditaryare presented. Thirteen
conditions found to be of major concern and of these five were considered
to be of importance and needing
immediate consideration are hip dysplasia, patella luxation, entropion,
retinal atrophy, and prolonged soft palate. The second priority
group consists of abnormal temperament, skin fold dermatitis, uterine
inertia, elbow dysplasia, ectropion, trichiasis, and deafness”.(Hodgman S, ‘Abnormalities
and defects in pedigree dogs: I, An investigation into the existence
of abnormalities in pedigree dogs in the British Isles’, J
Small Anim Pract, 4(6) 1963) Most of these pertain to
the English bulldog!

Dr Oliver Graham-Jones (FRCVS),
first resident veterinarian at London Zoo (Regent’s Park) where
he had a successful 16-year tenure following his appointment as curator
of mammals and veterinary officer to the Zoological Society of London
in 1951, and was also personal veterinarian to the British Prime Minister,
Sir Winston Churchill. In 1961, he was instrumental in the formation
of the British Veterinary Zoological Association and in 1962, was
President of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association. In 1966
he returned to his Alma Mater, the Royal Veterinary College as lecturer
and clinical tutor and took charge of the Beaumont Animal Hospital
until his retirement in 1979, whereupon in 1980 he was a recipient
of the Sir Arthur Keith Medal for his contributions to medical research
and to the development of co-operation between the medical and veterinary
professions.

During his opening address to the
6th BSAVA Congress, Dr Oliver Graham-Jones announced:
“We have recently been to the House of Commons on your
behalf and met many members of both Houses. We told them of our
tremendous interest in the abnormalities of some of the dogs that
we are called upon to treat; and explained that our
concern is that dogs are being bred and born into this world to
suffer throughout their lives from certain conditions which probably
could be prevented”. (Graham-Jones
O, J Small Anim Pract, 4(6), 413-414, 1963) At the parallel
BSAVA symposium, nearly 5-decades ago, themed ‘Abnormalities
and defects in pedigree dogs’, to address concerns
about inappropriate breed standards and inherited disorders in pedigree
dogs, six papers were presented, that, with a general discussion,
were published in the Journal of Small Animal Practice that year.
(Hodgman S, ‘Abnormalities and Defects in Pedigree Dogs–I.
An Investigation into Dogs in the British Isles’);
(Hein H, ‘Abnormalities and Defects in Pedigree Dogs-II. Hereditary
Aspects of Hip Dysplasia’);
(Knight G, ‘Abnormalities and Defects in Pedigree Dogs–III.
Tibio-Femoral Joint Deformity & Patella Luxation’);
(Barnett K, ‘Abnormalities and Defects in Pedigree Dogs–IV.
Progressive Retinal Atrophy’);
(Willis M, ‘Abnormalities and Defects in Pedigree Dogs—V.
Cryptorchidism’);
(Frankling E, ‘Abnormalities and Defects in Pedigree Dogs—VI.
The Breeders' Point of View’).

Ancient and contemporary bulldog skulls
compared to illustrate how breeders have altered skull and jaw
in 300 years. The concentrated repetition of aberrant mutations
of the cranium and ‘upper’ jaw (maxilla) has resulted
in this defect.

Dr Michael
Fox (BVet Med), a pioneer in animal welfare, left England
after attending the Royal Veterinary College, and interning as House
Surgeon at the Cambridge School of Veterinary Medicine. While at
the Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine, USA, as a Fellow and
Staff Scientist, Dr Fox stated: “Brachygnathism
(Bulldog
head) (title) The excess of soft tissue in proportion to the size
of the upper jaw and facial (brachyfacial) area may cause a variety
of clinical conditions”.
[Note: Figure 1.d. consisted of a photograph (of poor quality compared
to today’s digital publishing standards) of a typical bulldog
skull (see the image above) with drastically shortened upper jaw]
(Fox M, ‘Developmental Abnormalities of the Canine Skull’,
Can J Comp Med Vet Sci, 27(9), 1963)

Dr Fox stated: “Brachygnathism
(Fig. 1 Bulldog
skull) Although this condition may arise spontaneously in
mesocephalic breeds, it is maintained as a
breed characteristic in the brachycephalic (bulldog)
type, and secondary abnormalities of soft tissues are often associated
with this condition. Due to extreme reduction of the maxillary
region, abnormal development of the nasal alae and turbinate bones
may occur with subsequent respiratory dyspnoea. Secondary laryngeal
collapse has been reported in relation to these conditions.
Oversize of the tongue may occur, although the tongue would fit
a skull of normal maxillary proportions; this then may be relative
oversize of the tongue, which may be protruded continually and has
been mistaken for hypoglossal paralysis”.
(Fox, 1963)

Dr Fox stated:“Elongation of the soft
palate is a common anomaly in brachyfacial
breeds and contributes
to respiratory embarrassment, heat stroke, laryngeal collapse, and
the reverse sneeze syndrome. This disproportionate size
of soft tissue may be absolute oversize. Some brachycephalics
have fairly normal skull soft tissue proportions while in others
the amount of soft tissue greatly exceeds the skull proportions.
Dermatitis of the skin folds is common in these breeds where
excessive facial skin forms corrugations and pyotraumatic dermatitis
develops. Cleft palate and harelip, seen either singly or concomitantly,
are commonly seen in brachycephalic breeds”. (Fox,
1963)

Dr Fox stated: “The
higher incidence of neoplasia
in brachycephalic
dogs may be related to reduction in cranial capacity
in proportion to brain volume and pressure changes are less easily
compensated in the brachygnathic breeds. The shape of the cranium
in the brachycephalic may in part account for the high
incidence of tumors in these breeds. With reduction
of the anterior (maxillary) part of the skull and compression of
the frontal region into an almost vertical position, it is possible
that alterations in intracranial pressure produce more dramatic
symptoms than in meso- and dolichocephalic breeds. A cone of pressure
is built up by the tumor and compensatory shifting of the brain
may not occur so that symptoms are more frequently seen in these
breeds and neoplasia of the CNS more frequently diagnosed clinically
than other breeds. (Fox, 1963)

Dr Fox concluded:
“The impression that brachycephalic dogs more frequently
develop CNS tumors may be only partially correct, because normally
asymptomatic lesions, by virtue of the shape of the cranium, cause
greater increases in intracranial pressure. In the canine cranium
there is only limited opportunity for shift of the brain stem in
a rostro-caudal direction for the cranium is small and the tentorium
cerebelli is bony and rigid, but brain stem displacement due to
tumor pressure occurs especially laterally and dorsally. Pressure
changes may be less readily compensated therefore in the brachycephalic
where there is additional structural compression of the frontal
bones and reduction of the rostral space. Secondary internal hydrocephalus
may develop more easily under such circumstances”. (Fox
M, ‘Developmental Abnormalities of the Canine Skull’,
Can J Comp Med Vet Sci, 27(9), 1963)

Dr Fox went
on to publish a valuable service to the field, titled
(‘Diseases of Possible Hereditary Origin in the Dog: A Bibliographic
Review’, J Hered, 56(4), 1965), and later
Dr Michael Fox (DSc, PhD, DVM, BVet Med), then
a researcher at Washington University, Missouri, USA, in reviewing
various abnormal conditions and their breed incidence and mode of
inheritance in dogs, in 1970 listed three examples of susceptibilities
for the Bulldog: the skeletal anomaly - Achondroplasia (chondrodystrophia
fetalis); the soft-tissue anomaly - Prolongation of soft palate
& laryngeal collapse; and endocrine disturbance - Goitre (Fox
M, Developments in Veterinary Science: ‘Inherited Structural
and Functional Abnormalities in the Dog’, Washington University,
Missouri, Can Vet J, 11(1), 1970).

Dr Fox,
now Professor of Veterinary Bioethics and Vice President of the
Humane Society, USA and International stated: “Purebred
dogs have fundamental genetic defects. These defects can result
in lifelong suffering, sickness, and physical handicap – what
I have termed ‘domestogenic’ diseases, diseases inflicted
upon animals by humans. Certain handicaps may be ‘deliberately
created’ by selective breeding and become breed ‘standards’
in purebred dogs. The pushed-in (brachycephalic) face of the bulldog
is a dramatic example. Their protruding eyes and facial skin folds
easily become infected. The bulldog’s
disproportionately large soft palate sets up a negative pressure
so that the animal’s windpipe may actually constrict, or even
collapse, and the bulldog
is partially and chronically or suddenly completely asphyxiated”.
(Michael
W. Fox, Inhumane Society, St Martins, NY, 1990)

Dr Roy Robinson (FIBiol), animal
geneticist at St Stephens Road Nursery, London, back in the early
1980’s stated: “The 20th
century advent of the dog show could mean the end of the evolutionary
road for the species”.(Roy
Robinson, ‘Genetics for Dog Breeders’, Pergamon Press,
1982)

Dr Malcolm Willis (BSc, PhD),
geneticist and senior Lecturer in Animal Breeding and Genetics at
the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, stated:
“Standards drawn up by men as to what a particular
breed should look like and breeding directed towards producing this
ideal has not always been logical in a biological sense”.(Willis M, ‘Breeding
dogs for desirable traits’, J Small Anim Pract, 28(11), 1987)
Some of Dr Willis’ many published works include: (Malcolm
Willis, ‘Genetics of the Dog’, H F & G Witherby Ltd,
1989); and (Malcolm
Willis, ‘Practical Genetics for Dog Breeders’, H F &
G Witherby Ltd, 1992). Dr Willis was awarded Honorary
Associateship by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 1996,
the highest honour the RCVS can bestow upon a non-veterinarian.

Dr Brian Wilcock
(DVM, MSc, PhD), is Professor Emeritus in the Department
of Pathology at Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph,
Ontario, Canada and was the first Visiting Professor invited to
the Atlantic Veterinary College and also the D.L.T. Smith Visiting
Scientist at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr Wilcock’s
published works include (Pathology
of Domestic Animals - Beth A. Valentine, Brian P. Wilcock, Joanne
E. Mansell, Elsevier Science, 5th Edn, 2007) and
his awards include, in 1999, the Award of Merit from the Ontario
Veterinary Medical Association in recognition of ‘distinguished
public service to the profession of veterinary medicine’.

Dr Wilcock, 20-years ago stated:
“Purebred dogs are in big trouble. The trouble is
genetic disease in all its disguises, ranging from obvious
inherited errors of structure of function to those problems that
are more vaguely recognized as familial, breed-associated or even
just body type associated that may have complex causations that
are only partly genetic. We have done so little
about these tragically pervasive problems because of our shared
ignorance about the extent of the problem, and because the solution
is not found in a vaccine vial, pill bottle or surgical pack”.
(Wilcock B, Opinion, ‘The genetic crisis in purebred dogs’,
Can Vet J, 31(4), 1990)

Dr Wilcock
stated: “Most of us are poorly equipped to give advice
about the investigation and management of genetic disease and are
perhaps not inclined to acquire the necessary competence because
it is not economically valid expenditure of our time, or breeders
will not heed our advice even if it is sound! The uneasy relationship
between dog breeders and veterinarians is a historical reality,
to the detriment of the animals both claim to love. This commentary
may not change anything, but at least I will feel that I have done
something to awaken our collective professional conscience”.
(Wilcock, 1990)

Dr Wilcock stated: “The
very concept of animal breeding is based upon the exploitation of
anomalies, the planned
manipulation of genetic variation.
In no other species do we see the degree of phenotypic exaggeration
that is evident among purebred dogs. Unlike the genetic manipulation
in most other domestic species that has been guided by some pragmatic,
economic goal, the manipulation of the canine genome has, at least
in modern times, been guided
almost solely by the whims of fashion.
For the majority of dogs, there is no penalty for
bad design since we ask our pets to do so little, with no utilitarian
standards of structure or function at all” (Wilcock,
1990)

Dr Wilcock stated: “It
is probably no accident that those breeds that have remained relatively
free of genetic disease are those that have not drifted very far
from the utilitarian design for which they were originally created,
or from the medium-sized, square type that tends to dominate whenever
Mother Nature is permitted to run the breeding program. When we
substituted our own selection criteria for those dictated by the
laws of survival of the fittest, we neglected to maintain the rigor
of our selection process. All we demand today is that our pets have
the structural capability to survive the rigors of urban household
life (the sofa-to-bed obstacle course), master the intellectual
challenge of house-training, and maintain enough emotional stability
to be considered an "acceptable" pet by people who seem
prepared to forgive almost any outrageous behavior in their animals”!(Wilcock,
1990)

Dr Wilcock stated: “We
play our part by developing and offering increasingly sophisticated
veterinary care to compensate for the anatomical and physiological
shortcomings that dog breeders have allowed to evolve. This may
seem like a bitter indictment, but how else can you explain the
modern version of the English
bulldog? The
official breed standards of the Kennel Clubs actually contain words
of encouragement for the continued abuse of the canine phenotype.
English bulldogs
are required to have a ‘muzzle as short as possible’
and ‘eyes as far from the ears as possible’. My sense
of good taste prevents me from suggesting where the Bulldog’s
eyes may eventually end up if breeders were to take full advantage
of this directive”! (Wilcock,
1990)

Dr Wilcock stated: “The
problem we face is that genetically-conditioned disease is inherent
to the very principle of stabilizing phenotype through ‘line-breeding’.
Most of our diseases are somehow linked to what we have come to
accept as "normal" for the breed. To eliminate the predilection
of specific breeds to specific diseases by deliberately selecting
against specific phenotypes, or by instituting a rigorous test-and-cull
program for those few disorders for which we have sensitive, specific
and early testing, runs the risk of rendering the breed unrecognizable.
We probably would create the swiftfooted, free-breathing and caesarian-free
bulldog, but it may not look anything like the
bulldog that is so precious to those who have owned
and loved one”. (Wilcock,
1990)

Dr Wilcock concluded: “Our
natural bias is to value health above all else and a selection program
designed by veterinarians would value health criteria above all
else. We must recognize that people buy purebred dogs because each
breed is, in fact, different and has a predictable and reasonably
narrow range of physical and behavioral attributes. We will have
to reach compromises with breeders, breed clubs and the kennel clubs
as to what degree of retrenchment from some of the currently exaggerated
phenotype is acceptable. No one plans to produce disease-prone dogs.
Few breeders have the knowledge to recognize how changing shape,
length or configuration could predispose to disease”. (Wilcock
B, ‘The genetic crisis in purebred dogs’, Can Vet J,
31(4), 1990)

Dr Keith Stewart
Thomson (BSc, PhD) is a paleozoologist and Professor of
Natural History at University of Oxford and Director at the Oxford
University Museum of Natural History and has been Adjunct Professor
of Geology, University of Pennsylvania; Senior Research Fellow of
the American Philosophical Society; President of the Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia; Professor of Biology, Curator of
Vertebrate Zoology and Dean of Yale University and Dean and Director
of Yale's Peabody Museum of Natural History. His numerous publications
include: (Keith
Thomson, ‘Morphogenesis and Evolution’, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1988) and
(Keith Thomson, ‘Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature’,
Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn, 2007).

Dr Thomson
was the first academic to specifically single out and criticise
the state of the modern English Bulldog. Eventually I tracked down
Dr Thomson to Oxford University, where he is still working at the
age of 72 years young. The good Professor graciously scanned and
e-mailed me his paper and patiently answered my many questions.
I have abstracted and edited responses from my personal communications
with Dr Thomson following our contact.

“Was the inversion
to ‘Fall and Rise’ in the title deliberate”? I
enquired. His reply: “It was meant explicitly to highlight
attempts to bring back something less deformed than the current
standards strive for. The only way to go is up. I suspect you are
opening up yourself for instant, mindless, criticism. But it is
necessary to publicise how awful the physical condition of show
bulldogs really is. What does the South African equivalent of the
R.S.P.C.A. say about the ethics of the modern English bulldog?”
(Keith Thomson, personal communication,
16 February, 2010); “I got a huge mail at the time,
most from the USA trying to create a more reasonable bulldog. I
wrote as a biologist because I had seen the nineteenth century skulls”.
(K. Thomson, pers. comm. 5
Feb, 2010); “Glad you got them. We Thomsons have to
stick together. Nice dogs.” he kindly remarked. (K.
Thomson, pers. comm., 3 Feb, 2010)

Dr Thomson
is indeed a man after my own heart - not one to mince his words.
In his opening paragraph he stated: “The
English
(British) bulldog breed
became a symbol of national courage and fortitude. Today
it is merely a dysfunctional lapdog. This history should
cause us to reflect not only on the real and symbolic uses to which
we put our domestic animals, but also the ethics of their breeding.
If ever there were a symbol of former glory that had fallen on hard
times, it is the English (British) bulldog. It
urgently needs a breeding program that would restore some grace
and integrity, let alone dignity, to this very ancient breed. In
England it is an important totemic animal”.(Keith
Stewart Thomson, ‘The Fall and Rise of the English Bulldog’,
American Scientist, 84(3), May-June, 1996)

Dr Thomson stated: “There
is an almost voyeuristic fascination in the physical deformities
that have been bred into the modern bulldog
- the severely brachycephalic head, prognathous up-curved mandible,
distorted ears and tail. A modern bulldog,
with its overly short legs, exaggerated broad stance and slow, heavy
gait more resembles a veterinary rehabilitation project than a proud
symbol of athletic strength or national resolve. Not only is the
dog grotesquely disfigured, it is partially handicapped
by the insult to its nasal and respiratory apparatus.
Furthermore bulldog pups have to be delivered by
Caesarian section. Older accounts of the bulldog
always refer to its strength, but they clearly refer to a different,
more athletic animal.” (Thomson,
1996)

Dr Thomson: “How
did it come to its present sorry state of affairs? Of course the
answer is breeding for fashion. One only has to
compare the English bulldog of 1996 with that of
1840 to see how fashion reinforced, or perhaps, led by those arbiters
of canine conformation – the Kennel Clubs - has changed this
dog. In truth, the
bulldog
is cruelly malformed.
The bulldog
of the early nineteenth century, like those of 500 years earlier,
had a broad head with a, moderately foreshortened muzzle. Its jaw
was undershot, but although the occlusion of its splayed teeth was
disrupted, at least it had a functioning set of jaws. Its legs were
perhaps 10 percent longer than in today’s breed. Its ears
were distorted but its tail was long.”(Thomson,
1996)

Dr Thomson stated: “What
bloodstocks were blended with the original bulldog is unclear. But
the result is beyond argument. A
nasty transition took place from the tough English
bulldog
to the cruelly deformed animal we see today. Admiral
in all ways except the physical deformity it rates now among the
least athletic of dogs, puffing and grunting along. According to
many authorities, in the late 1800’s the bulldog
was bred with the pug in order to improve its disposition. Whether
the cross with the pugs actually happened or not, in a period of
about 50 years, the bulldog acquired a smaller,
more chunky body, shortened legs and a piggy little tail. Whether
by design or accident, it also acquired a drastically more distorted
face.” (Thomson,
1996)

Dr Thomson stated:
“Trying to unravel the genetic basis of the ‘modern
bulldog’
would normally be impossible. However, we can get some clues from
the extraordinary work of Dr Stockard of Cornell
University. Craniofacial malformation is superficially similar in
the bulldog, pug, Boston terrier and Pekingese,
the result of various forms of chondrodystrophy of the developing
axial skeleton, revealed most strongly at the two extremes - face
and tail. Similarly the dwarfed distortion of the limbs is due to
chondrodystrophy of the appendicular skeleton. These malformations result from a developmental defect in
the pre-cartilaginous stage of bone formation. These dogs are being
bred to preserve and even accentuate birth defects.”
(Thomson, 1996)

Dr Thomson stated: “The extent of the phenotypic expression
of the ‘gene’ depended in part on the genetic background
into which it was bred. The characteristically broad skull and shortened
face of the bulldog is under the control of a complex
genetic system affecting the entire axial skeleton. Chondrodystrophic
brachycephaly in the bulldog is different from
that of the pug as it affects only the face. In
the pug the mandible is shortened along with the
face. Brachycephaly is also associated with the malformation of
the basicranium and the creation of an almost spherical braincase.
None of this is seen in the bulldog, which may
suggest that the pug did not figure in the recent history of bulldogs
after all.” (Thomson,
1996)

Dr Thomson stated: “The
extreme foreshortening of the face may simply be due to strong selection
- and severe inbreeding - within the bulldog
line in which the axial skeleton defects were accentuated. The
brachycephalic face is under the control of mostly recessive genes.
When Stockard took the first-generation offspring from a cross and
back-crossed them to a bulldog, the resulting offspring
ranged in appearance from a modern bulldog to an
old-fashioned bulldog, a boxer and mastiff. Various
other versions of the same cross gave us the boxer. Crossing the
bulldog with the (extinct) white English terrier
gave us the bull terrier.” (Thomson,
1996)

Dr Thomson stated: “Given
this close relationship of the modern breeds, it ought to be readily
possible to reverse at least some of the damage of the last hundred
years and to breed a bulldog
of healthier conformation. The American bulldog has been isolated
in North America for at least 200 years. Successful attempts have
been made on both sides of the Atlantic to breed a new - that is,
old - bulldog
using crosses with bull-mastiff, American bulldog and bull terrier
to recover some of the old conformation. The results are
already somewhere closer to the original breed, but restoration
of the leg length seems to be difficult”. (Thomson,
1996)

Dr Thomson concluded:
“Excessive
inbreeding is obviously wrong because it leads in most cases to
less healthy animals. Deliberate selection for dysfunctional traits
is, however, something quite different. It
is clear that careful crosses have the possibility of restoring
the bulldog line to something of its former dignity
if not glory. One can make a strong ethical argument for this simply
because the present trend in the evolution of the bulldog
is producing a medical as well as a physical grotesquerie.
In the meantime, breeders
and owners alike have a lot to answer for”.
(Keith S.
Thomson, ‘The Fall and Rise of the English Bulldog’,
American Scientist, 84(3), 1996)

Dr Randall Ott (DVM, MS), Professor
of Production Medicine / Theriogenology at the College of Veterinary
Medicine, University of Illinois stated: “Dog-breeding practices
have undoubtedly had an impact on the occurrence of inherited diseases
and the myriad of diseases and deformities have become a cash-cow
for the pet-repair type of veterinary practice. Inherited
diseases have not only accompanied the methods of breeding used to
develop breeds and winning lines of show dogs, but were deliberately
added to the dog’s genotype. Improving purebred
dogs should be considered in terms of animal welfare”.
(Ott R, ‘Animal selection
and breeding techniques that create diseased populations and compromise
welfare’, J Am Vet Med Assoc, 208(12), 1996)

Dr Paul McGreevy (BVSc,
PhD), Associate Professor of Animal Behaviour and Welfare Science,
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
is a member of the Scientific Advisory Panel for World Society for
the Protection of Animals and the author of several publications
(McGreevy P, ‘Breeding for Quality of Life’, Animal
Welfare, 16(S1), 2007); (Paul McGreevy, ‘A Modern Dog’s
Life’, University of NSW Press, Sydney, 2009). With Frank
Nicholas (also at University of Sydney and featured elsewhere in
this report), he has long argued that “many
traits, which are really defects, have been included in the breed
standards”.
(McGreevy P; Nicholas
F, ‘Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems in Dog Breeding’,
Animal Welfare, 8(4), 1999)

Dr McGreevy
stated: “While acknowledging the major contribution made
by dog breeders and dog breeding organizations in fulfilling the
important need of humans for animal companions, breeders and scientists
have long been aware that all is not well in the world of companion
animal breeding. Many of the traits for which there was initially
a functional basis were incorporated into the breed standards when
dogs left the working arena and entered the world of dog shows.
Now some show standards place more importance on appearance than
on functionality."
(McGreevy & Nicholas, 1999)

Dr McGreevy stated: “Some
breed standards and selection practices run counter to the welfare
interests of dogs, to the extent that some breeds are characterized
by traits that may be difficult to defend on welfare grounds. Unfortunately,
the incidence of certain inherited defects in some breeds is unacceptably
high, while the number of registered animals of certain breeds within
some countries is so low as to make it almost impossible for breeders
to avoid mating close relatives. After breeders have taken into
account the many traits incorporated into breed standards, there
is very little selection pressure remaining to be devoted to traits
that are directly related to welfare”. (McGreevy
& Nicholas, 1999)

Dr McGreevy stated:“In
some cases, traits that are best regarded as defects have actually
been included in breed standards, eg brachiocephaly in the
British bulldog.
Breeders compete with one another to see how well
they can produce phenotypes that conform to a written standard –
including traits that have, at best, questionable welfare benefits.
The bulldog
is required to have a curved ‘roach’ back. It is therefore
not surprising that bulldogs are sometimes born with twisted spines,
ie hemivertebrae. For the bulldog,
the ‘skull should be very large – the larger the better’
(Pre-1987 Kennel Club, London). This
is a breed in which large foetal head size commonly leads to dystocia
(difficulties in birthing)”.(McGreevy
& Nicholas, 1999)

Dr McGreevy stated: “If
less attention was paid to traits of only peripheral importance,
it would be possible to impose quite strong selection for relevant
temperament and performance. A very simple de-selection criterion
could be the number of trips to the veterinarian, or the total veterinary
bill. The minimum performance requirement is the ability to survive
birth without assistance. Where genes
can be passed from one generation to the next only with the intervention
of a veterinarian who performs a caesarean section to overcome relative
foetal oversize, as in the British
bulldog, it can be argued
that both dam and offspring have failed an essential performance
test”.(McGreevy
P; Nicholas F, 1999)

Dr McGreevy stated: “Even
without pressure from breed standards, many breeders would still
find themselves producing dogs with serious defects. Every animal
that has ever lived has carried at least one deleterious recessive
gene. The average number of deleterious recessive genes carried
by an individual dog could be as high as twenty. The end result
is that most breeds have their characteristic list of inherited
defects. Each disorder brings with it different welfare concerns.
Even those that are not life-threatening are still significant,
ranging from the frustration of being less able to play due to respiratory
problems in the case of brachiocephalics with compromised airways,
to the stress of corrective surgery in dogs with orthopaedic problems”.
(McGreevy & Nicholas,
1999)

Dr McGreevy stated: “Because
deleterious genes are maintained by natural selection at a low frequency,
the incidence of any particular defect is so low as to go unnoticed.
However the mating of relatives
dramatically changes the frequency of genotypes. In particular,
it increases the frequency of homozygotes, which has the effect
of bringing out deleterious recessive genes. The
greater the level of inbreeding with close relatives, the greater
the chance of breeding dogs with inherited defects.
Even in breeds with large numbers of registered
animals, the tendency to concentrate on just a small number of families
(often called ‘line
breeding’, just
another word for ‘inbreeding’) means that the
actual rate of inbreeding is often far higher than one would expect
from the number of dogs registered”. (McGreevy
& Nicholas, 1999)

Dr McGreevy
concluded: “There are several constructive ways to overcome
these challenges. Breed associations can ensure that reduction of
welfare problems is one of their major aims; they can review
breed standards; they can
embrace modern technology for animal identification and pedigree
checking; they can allow
the introduction of 'new' genetic material into closed stud-books;
and they can encourage collaboration with geneticists in identifying
and using DNA markers for the control of inherited disorders. There
should be a concerted effort to produce and evaluate as companion
animals first-cross (F1) hybrids from matings between various pairs
of breeds”. (McGreevy
P; Nicholas F, ‘Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems
in Dog Breeding’, Animal Welfare, 8(4), 1999)

Dr Vicki Meyers-Wallen
(DVM, PhD), Associate Professor of Canine Genetics and
Reproduction, Baker Institute for Animal Health, College of Veterinary
Medicine, Cornell University stated: “It may be best avoid
mating combinations that we know will produce affected animals,
rather than eliminate whole groups of genes from a population. This
is particularly important for breeds with small gene pools, where
it is difficult to maintain genetic diversity. There
is the potential to do harm if we fail to maintain genetic diversity,
particularly in purebred dogs”.
(Meyers-Wallen V, ‘Ethics and genetic selection in purebred
dogs’, Reprod Domest Anim, 38(1), 2003)

Dr James Serpell
(BSc, PhD), Professor of Humane Ethics & Animal Welfare,
Dept Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University
of Philadelphia, USA has stated: “To meet a particular
aesthetic in pursuit of fashion, the English
Bulldog has been
bred so selectively that they are severely crippled. Indeed, the
breed as a whole can be described as ‘the canine equivalent
of a train wreck’.
The breed is crippled by multiple insults to its nasal and respiratory
system. The difficulty they have breathing while asleep is so pronounced
that most of them die prematurely from heart failure due to chronic
oxygen deprivation. These malformations mainly are due to a congenital
defect known as chondrodystrophy, a developmental anomaly in the
formation of bones that produces gross distortions, particularly
in the craniofacial and appendicular skeleton. In humans, this condition
causes a severe disability, and considerable research efforts are
devoted to finding a cure for it”. (Serpell
J, ‘Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection –
beyond the “cute response”, Society & Animals 11:
83-100, 2003)

Dr Serpell stated: “Yet
these animals are being deliberately bred to preserve, and even
accentuate, the same disabling characteristics. If
bulldogs
were products of genetic engineering by agri-pharmaceutical corporations,
there would be protest demonstrations throughout the Western world,
and rightly so. But because they have been generated by anthropomorphic
selection (by breeders), their handicaps not only are overlooked
but even, in some quarters, applauded. Regardless Ethical limits
surely should disallow us from deliberately breeding companion animals
who suffer from painful, distressing, or disabling physical or emotional
handicaps or from surgically mutilating them in the interests of
fashion or convenience”. (Serpell,
2003)

Dr Emma Milne, from BBC
One's ‘Vets In Practice’, called specifically for an end
to the breeding of bulldogs,
which she described as "mutated
freaks" and stated: “inbreeding to
produce show dogs has led to damaging genetic weaknesses” leading
to a situation where "modern
bulldogs
can't run, can't give birth and can't
breathe due to problems with too much soft tissue in their mouth,
resulting in a dog that is struggling for air all its life, so that
there is no such thing as a healthy bulldog".“Bulldog breeding ban urged”,
read the headline, with the report pointing out that individuals with
the flattest faces, biggest shoulders and smallest hips are mated,
creating, according to many veterinarians, dogs with health defects
that would never have surfaced through natural selection and noting
that the bulldog is on a list of pedigree breeds
that the Council of Europe wants to see banned in their current form.
(BBC News, Real Story BBC
One, Monday, 14 June, 2004)

Dr Frank Nicholas (BSc, PhD),
Professor Emeritus and Dr Peter Thomson (MSc, PhD),
Associate Professor, at the Faculty of Veterinary Science and the
Centre for Advanced Technologies in Animal Genetics, at the University
of Sydney in Australia stated: “Given the widespread utilisation
of estimated breeding values (EBVs)
in selection of production animals, it is somewhat disappointing that
they have not been more widely utilised in the control of inherited
disorders in companion animals. But it is never too late! Breed
societies should be consulting local quantitative geneticists right
now, to establish schemes for the control of multifactorial disorders
via selection on EBVs”.(Nicholas
F; Thomson P, ‘Inherited disorders: sustained attack from several
quarters’, Vet J, 168(2), 2004)

Dr Elaine Ostrander (BS, PhD)
and her so-called Ostrander Group at the National
Human Genome Project in Bethesda, Maryland, are leading the field
of canine genetic research with co-operative projects at institutions
worldwide. Dr Ostrander, a geneticist, is Chief Investigator, Cancer
Genetics Branch and Head, Comparative Genetics Section at the National
Institutes of Health. In the parallel Canine Genome Project, Dr Ostrander’s
team are examining landmark regions in dog DNA sequence from pure
breeds to identify variants important in disease susceptibility, behaviour,
and morphologic variation in the domestic dog, including the Bulldog.
Cancer is the number one killer of dogs and Dr Ostrander's laboratory
is mapping the genes responsible for cancer susceptibility.

The
Ostrander Group has determined that pedigree dogs are the
multigenerational result of directed matings, which favour the expression
of recessive disorders. Their studies on genes important in growth
regulation have identified loci and sequence level variants that
are under strong regulatory selection in the domestic dog and they
continue to work towards identification of genes controlling differential
growth of the canine leg length and width, skull shape, and overall
body plan. Professor Ostrander’s main collaborators are post-doctoral
research fellows, Dr Heidi Parker (PhD) at the Cancer Genetics Branch,
National Institutes of Health, and Dr Nathan Sutter (PhD), Assistant
Professor of Medical Genetics at the Faculty of the College of Veterinary
Medicine, Cornell University, USA. I shall abstract just one of
too many articles here, with more by the Ostrander Group to follow
chronologically throughout:

“Most dog breeds have existed as closed breeding populations
for nearly four centuries, leading to the development of breeds
enriched for particular genetic disorders, nearly half of which
occur predominantly or exclusively in one or a few breeds with a
near absence in other breeds, indicating that a subset of dog breeds
are strongly enriched for particular disease alleles as a result
of origination from a small group of founders, population bottlenecks
and popular-sire effects. It
will be incumbent on us to use the information from canine genetic
studies to improve not only our own health and well being, but also
that of our closest companion”.
(Sutter N
and Ostrander E, ‘Dog Star Rising: The Canine Genetics System’,
Nature Reviews: Genetics, Volume 5, December 2004)

Marla Anderson, then at Simon
Fraser University and currently a PhD candidate and lecturer at McMaster
University, BC, Canada stated: “The desire for our canine companions
to meet our expectations has lead to breeding practices designed to
produce characteristics more desirable to human in Western culture:
(a) animals dressed in designer clothes; (b) physical mutilation such
as tail docking and ear cropping; and (c) complete modification of
genetic make up. They also create varying degrees of suffering. English
bulldogs
have been modified genetically into a creature who endures numerous
physical deformities. These dogs suffer from sleep apnea, excessively
labored breathing, and premature death as a result of chronic oxygen
deprivation. In addition, because of the fashion of bulldogs with
abnormally large heads and proportionately small hips, most must be
born by Cesarean section”.
(Anderson M, Henderson D, ‘Pernicious Portrayals’, Society
& Animals, 13:4, 2005)

Amy Young (BS),
Manager of the Bannasch laboratory at the School of Veterinary Medicine,
University of California, Davis, stated: “The bulldog
is perhaps the most easily recognized of the brachycephalic breeds,
the Standard of which requires prognathism, undershot bites, a short
muzzle and wide-set, round eyes. The rounder skull is associated with
dogs bred for fighting, with the shorter muzzle and wider back skull
being more powerful for biting. Unfortunately,
normal respiration is compromised in dogs with brachycephalic
head types, particularly in warm weather. A resulting condition,
brachycephalic airway syndrome, which can include a hypoplastic
trachea, everted laryngeal saccules, elongated soft palate, and stenotic
nares, sometimes requires surgery to improve airflow in affected animals”.(Amy Young & Danika
Bannasch, ‘Morphological Variation in the Dog’, in Elaine
Ostrander (Ed), ‘The Dog and Its Genome’, Cold Spring
Harbour Monograph Series 44, 2006/7)

Dr
Kevin Stafford (MSc, PhD), Professor of Applied Ethology
and Animal Welfare with the Institute of Veterinary, Animal and
Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, New Zealand, stated: “In
the last three decades of the 20th Century, developments in veterinary
medicine and surgery allowed even more extreme physical characteristics
to be bred (in some dogs). The
skull of the Bulldog
should be very large (according to the Standard), but a large fetal
head size predisposes bitches to dystochia. Caesarean section has
become almost passe’. Now is the time to change Breed
standards that predispose animals to physical problems and disease.
There are hundreds of dog diseases that are inherited or have a
major heredity component and more are identified every year. Many
show high prevalence in some breeds”.
(Kevin Stafford,
‘The Welfare of Dogs’, Springer, 2006)

Dr Stafford stated:
“The canine genome has accumulated many mutations since
domestication and some are significant in that they cause disease.
The development of breeds in the last 150 years required inbreeding
and genetic isolation. Individual champions reduced the gene pool
further by being widely used as popular sires and more recently,
fewer dogs were used as particular traits were sought after. The
tendency to use only a small percentage of available stock has resulted
in an increase of autosomal recessive and other types of inherited
diseases in purebred dogs and selection for particular characteristics
may have even increased the prevalence of inherited diseases”.(Kevin Stafford,
‘The Welfare of Dogs’, Springer, 2006)

Dr Francis Galibert (PhD), Emeritus Professor,
University of Rennes, and Dr Catherine Andre’
(PhD), Senior and Staff Scientists respectively of Laboratoire de
Génétique et Développement, Centre National de
la Recherche, Rennes, France, stated: “Over the last few
centuries, several hundred dog breeds have been artificially selected
through intense breeding. Characteristic
traits were selected by reducing the gene flow between breeds and
concentrating the particular alleles governing these traits within
each breed, resulting in a genetic isolate. Unfortunately, this practice
has also concentrated the alleles of other genes that are responsible
for simple Mendelian genetic diseases or for increasing susceptibility
to complex diseases. Today, all breeds suffer from different,
often specific diseases having clear genetic origins”. (Galibert
F, Andre’ C, Vertebrate Genomes, Genome Dyn, Karger, Basel,
2:46–59, 2006)

Dr Todd Riecks (DVM, DACVS)
at the Dept of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary
Medicine, Ohio State University, stated: “The
breed predominantly affected by the brachycephalic syndrome is the
English Bulldog.
Elongated soft palate is the most common abnormality (87.1% of dogs);
the most common combination of abnormalities is elongated soft palate,
stenotic nares, and everted saccules (25.8%
of dogs). The English
Bulldog was the most common breed
for all abnormalities, including elongated soft palate (50% of dogs),
stenotic nares (38.9% of dogs), everted saccules (55.6% of dogs),
hypoplastic trachea (53.9% of dogs), and laryngeal collapse (40% of
dogs). Surgical treatment of brachycephalic syndrome
appears to be associated with a favorable long-term outcome”.
(Riets T et al, J Am Vet Med Assoc, 230(9), 2007).

Dr Koharik
Arman (DVM) stated: “More
than 500 genetic defects exist in today’s purebred dogs. Inherited
diseases such as hip dysplasia, brachycephalic airway syndrome,
cardiomyopathies, endocrine dysfunctions, blood disorders, and hundreds
more, affect the quality of life and longevity of these
dogs. Over 400 breeds currently exist, but they are artificial constructs
of human fancy, instead of the evolutionary outcome of
natural selection. The wide array of genetic diseases found
in purebred dogs reflects their unnatural development, by kennel
clubs and breeders who are largely responsible for this welfare
predicament”.(Arnan K, ‘A
new direction for kennel club regulations and breed standards’,
Can Vet J, 48(9), 2007)

Dr Arman stated:
“Veterinarians have also facilitated the progression of
this situation and must partake in its resolution. Hopefully,
dog owners, responsible breeders, veterinarians, and animal welfare
scientists can assert enough pressure to convince kennel Clubs and
other breeder associations to re-evaluate and redefine their breed
standard regulations to end the inbreeding that causes so many genetic
problems. Several aspects of purebred inherited diseases
must be investigated to determine what changes need to be made in
current breeding practices, and how these changes can be implemented
effectively”.
(Arnan, 2007)

Dr Arman stated: “The
historical role of dog fancies, modern kennel club breed standards,
breeding methods, and canine genetics must be explored to understand
the main causes of the problem and how it can be resolved. Pertinent
breeder and veterinarian ethical responsibilities should also be
considered. Throughout the 19th century, however, dog show and kennel
club administrators pushed for the morphological perfection of dog
breeds by insisting on rigid adherence to the rules of typology
and ancestry. No importance was placed on the utility and health
of purebred dogs. The purebred principle and strict breeding rules,
however, were not introduced until the late 19th century”.
(Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Dog
breeding and showing evolved into a popular sport and during the
Victorian era, a pedigree system was established, and the canine
gene pool rapidly became depleted as inbreeding, line breeding,
and over-use of sires became common practice. Rigid regulations,
fixed breed standards, and the disproportionate significance attributed
to typology dictated the development of these breeding methods.
Today, many of the resultant dog breeds
are no longer capable of performing the tasks for which they were
originally bred, due to the anatomical and/or physiological deformations
that kennel clubs have imposed upon them. Charles Darwin
coined the term ‘artificial selection’ to describe how
humans were influencing inherited traits in other species, effectively
replacing the naturally occurring mechanisms that select for genetic
fitness”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Many
kennel clubs worldwide still prescribe to conservative, centuries’
old ideologies and traditions that are harmful to the canine species.
Breed Standards consist of exhaustive guidelines that detail the
aesthetic requirements of each breed, but they
overemphasize typology, which is not conducive to advancing canine
health. These ongoing
attempts to create the ultimate canine conformation, with continually
elevated ideals, are precisely what result in detrimentally exaggerated
physiques and diseased animals.
Such principles beg the question, why promote the concept
of the hypothetically superior purebred? A superior canine strain,
or breed purity, was considered attainable by ‘breeding the
best to the best’”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman explained: “Breed
development, as it is practiced today, consists of four stages:
The 1st stage is the ‘Founding Event’ — a finite
number of individuals are chosen from a source population to contribute
the genetic material for the breed. The 2nd stage is ’Isolation’
— the breed must be genetically isolated from other canines,
so that random exchange of genetic material cannot take place. The
3rd stage is ‘Inbreeding’ — the mating of two
closely related individuals that share common ancestors. The 4th
stage is Artificial Selection — Inbreeding alone does not
result in desired typology and elimination of unwanted qualities,
so individuals from early generations are selected so that only
those possessing desired traits may reproduce."(Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman explained: “These four steps
create a new genome, with traits that can be reproduced by the breed
itself in a reliable and consistent manner. This phenomenon is made
possible because of the lack of phenotypic and genetic heterogeneity
that the breeder attains in the new genome. According to general
breeding philosophy, ‘Inbreeding is a method of holding fast
to that which is good and of casting out that which is bad by establishing
homozygous purity’. The number of individuals used as founding
stock, and how closely related they are, is paramount to the genetic
health of the breed. Unfortunately, many breeds originate from a
limited few individuals, often siblings or half-siblings that are
already inbred to an extent”.(Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “The
advent of pedigree systems in the 1800s, developed by kennel clubs
with the goal of breed improvement adds another genetic obstacle
to already compromised breeds. Breed
registries are only open for a short period during the Founding
Event and then closed. No individuals may be registered to the breed
unless they are descended from the founding stock and so, no new
genetics are brought in. Kennel club regulations create and
sustain artificial ‘bottleneck’ conditions. At the level
of individual breeders, ‘line-breeding’ (inbreeding)
methods continue to be used in pursuit of improving their individual
stock. Inbreeding is also used as a technique to rapidly develop
new typologies to be registered as breeds, it is also standard practice
for dog breeding. What would
a scientific assessment of Kennel Club philosophies and breeding
methods reveal?” (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Current
genetic evidence refutes the theory of inbreeding for typological
traits to achieve breed purity. Population genetics is the tool
that exposes the fallacy of purebred dogs.
It is used to calculate gene frequencies and that of alternative
alleles within genes, both of which are integral to assessing the
health of a species. An individual canine’s genotype will
dictate the production of specific structural and functional proteins,
and in combination with environmental influences, result in individual
phenotypes, or visible outcomes. If both parents supply the same
allele for a particular gene, the offspring is regarded as homozygous
for a specific trait. If the alleles supplied by each parent are
different, then the offspring is heterozygous for that trait”.
(Arnan, 2007)

Dr Arman explained: “The
Hardy-Weinberg Principle describes how in most species, a natural
balance maintains a high degree of genotypic heterozygosity in order
to preserve genetic fitness and hence, species’ health.
High rates of homozygosity can occur in nature due to “bottleneck
situations,” such as a limited gene pool in island populations,
but in canines, homozygosity is deliberately accomplished by people
trying to achieve specific breed standards. Many desired breed traits
are recessive, rather than dominant, and require that both copies
of the inherited alleles be the same for the trait to be expressed
phenotypically. Individuals selected for consistent expression of
alleles specific to desired physical traits, results in offspring
that are homozygous”.
(Arnan, 2007)

Dr Arman stated:“Breed
purity and genotypic homozygosity is harmful to canine health because
it requires inbreeding and results in an abnormally high occurrence
of inherited diseases. Unfortunately, when breeders selectively
“double up” on desired traits for physical conformation,
they also double up on genes that can result in increased disease.
All
individuals carry deleterious genes, but in a heterozygous state,
are not expressed and are ordinarily recessive.”
(Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman explained: “Deleterious
alleles are still present in heterozygous populations; however,
when infrequent homozygosity of these genes occurs naturally, the
individuals are eliminated through natural selection, due to their
inferior fitness. The existence of deleterious alleles in a population,
therefore, does not affect a species’ overall fitness. The
doubling up of both good and bad genes occurs through linkage disequilibrium
where alleles at two or more loci, not necessarily on the same chromosome,
do not assort independently of each other. Consequently, when
breeders select for preferred traits, which are often inherently
harmful, in addition to obtaining the ‘good’ gene, they
also select for or against every other gene specifically linked
to the desired typology”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “The
resultant purebreds possess homozygous genes for naturally occurring
lethal, sub-lethal, and sub-vital alleles; hence,
the existence of some 500 genetic defects amongst purebred dogs.
Such breeding practices do not have the welfare of the individual
dogs at heart; rather, they reflect humans’ pursuit of recognition
in the show world, and prosperity in sales. The
genetic damage, or the inbreeding depression, that occurs due to
these breeding methods can be measured by using a formula referred
to as ‘Wright’s Coefficient of Inbreeding’ (COI).
Inbreeding depression is the complex of behavioural, physical, and
reproductive problems that result from the abnormally homogeneous
genotypes described”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman explained: “The
COI is used to calculate the statistical probability that two random
alleles at a certain locus are identical by common ancestry; this
coefficient can range from 0% to 100%. Complete manual calculation
of a COI is an exhaustive task, but computer pedigree software such
as ‘CompuPed’ greatly facilitates the process. Many
breed Founder events incorporated so few individuals that, if the
COIs of all current members of such a breed are calculated all the
way back to the Founders, the COIs will only vary by a fraction
of 1%. In a natural population, two arbitrarily selected individuals
should have a COI of 0%, but many dog breeds today average COIs
significantly greater than 25%, if only ten generations are included
in the calculation".(Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Recent studies have
demonstrated that for every 10% increase in COI, there is a 7% decrease
in litter size and median life span, and that any COI above 9% pushes
perilously past the genetic threshold of health. ‘Wright’s
Coefficient of Relationship’ (RC), measures the degree of
genetic relation between two individuals. Normally, two random individuals
in a population will have an RC of 0, and two siblings will have
an RC of 50%. In many dog breeds, two randomly chosen individuals
will have an RC above 50%, which is a degree of genetic relation
greater than that of two siblings. Two purebred siblings will frequently
have an RC measure greater than 80% and identical twins 100%.
The alarming reality is that ‘unrelated’ purebreds today
are actually genetically related to a greater extent than individuals
that are truly related!" (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Now, with a basic
understanding of the genetic truth of breed purity, myriad causes
can be implicated in generating the high RC and COI values seen
in today’s dog breeds, and the resultant effects on canine
health can be fully appreciated. Another matter to consider is that
the desired traits
that breeders select for are often detrimental to breed health.
Examples include the purposeful breeding of chondrodysplastic bulldogs,
because their morphology is perceived as cute, or selecting for
defective development of the embryonic neural canal because the
ridge of stiff hair on the back of a Rhodesian ridgeback is considered
attractive”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “In the previous
sense, inherited disease is
not only being manifested in purebreds accidentally, but is also
being deliberately cultivated in many breeds. What does a
scientific analysis of breed purity reveal? Present medical knowledge
and genetic research provide a definitive answer: Purebred
dogs present us with an urgent welfare issue that needs to be resolved!
What constitutes adequate welfare for canines? A useful framework
for assessing animal welfare is the ‘five freedoms’
established in 1965 at the University of Bristol (Mullan S, Main
D, ‘Principles of ethical decision-making in veterinary practice’,
Vet Rec, 149(11), 2001); (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Kennel
clubs (or unions), breeders and veterinarians are strongly implicated
in having created and sustained and are morally responsible for
the current situation and unhealthy state of the purebred canine
population. Kennel
clubs and unions control the actions of registered breeders and,
thus, have direct responsibilities toward the animals and the breeders.
Scores of violations
of the “five freedoms” are committed against purebred
dogs by breeders following the kennel club / kennel union guidelines
that dictate the manner in which these dogs are created.
Many breeds are now unable to complete birth/parturition without
a caesarean and many breed conformations directly violate the principle
of ‘sound’ health”.(Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman enquired: “So
where should kennel clubs (or unions) go from here? How should the
purebred be redefined, so that health and utility are equal to type?
Dr Arman advised: “The
most important change to be initiated is the opening of all dog
breed registries to allow an increase in genetic variation. Additionally,
the kennel clubs (or unions) should follow the example of the agriculture
industry and set minimum COI numbers for foundation stocks at less
than nine during breed establishment. If
dog breeders were to be subjected to Foundation stock regulation,
the frequency of heritable diseases in purebred dogs would decrease,
and eventually many would be eliminated”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated:
“If kennel clubs permit
increased genetic variety amongst registered dog breeds, the inbreeding
depression that is so rampant today will eventually decline.
Canine breeds can and should be differentiated, bred, and
maintained on a dynamically balanced, heterozygous population basis
without restriction to a closed, historic founder group. Many
responsible breeders are saddened by the condition of their dogs,
but are unable to remedy the situation because kennel clubs (or
unions) bar the introduction of new genetic variety and methodologies.
The purpose of cynological associations is to facilitate the work
of breeders, rather than impede it. Breeders should be allowed to
determine where outcross animals may best be obtained for specific
breeds in order to improve their dog’s health. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Kennel
clubs should not only permit genetic improvement, but they should
also reinforce it. To motivate breeders to increase their
genetic pools, kennel clubs must also redefine their breed standards
to include health, vigour, and temperament, in addition to typology.
To enforce the maintenance of genetic improvement, tools
such as DNA analysis are available and should be used by breed associations
to monitor heterozygosity and relationships in major lines by random
DNA testing. To introduce new breeds, assortative breeding, rather
than inbreeding and line breeding can be implemented”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated:
“The Africanis Society of Southern Africa is an excellent
example of an ethically responsible canine association. Its purpose
is to conserve the Africanis dog that has evolved through natural
selection rather than to artificially develop the breed and segregate
it to create new breeds. The heterogeneity of the various Canis
africanis ecotypes is valued for the fitness it imparts to them.
It is an excellent example of how nature will ‘breed’
dogs that are capable of adapting to changes in their environment,
resistant to common parasites and diseases, and principally free
of inherited diseases. The Africanis Society maintains a strict
code of ethics, and all registered dogs are inspected and approved.
There is a standard DNA testing policy to avoid differentiation
of morphological types and to preserve the gene pool as a heterogeneic
entity”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Veterinarians
bear some responsibility for the welfare situation of purebred dogs.
In fact, the veterinary profession has facilitated the evolution
of purebred dogs. Breeds that would
not normally be sustainable are propagated by the compliance of
veterinarians to breeder wishes. Breeds such as the bulldog
cannot complete parturition without surgical intervention, and dogs
with severe hip dysplasia would be euthanized if they could not
have their hips surgically corrected. In
the welfare scenario of the purebred dog, there are 4 viewpoints
to consider. First is the welfare of the dogs, 2nd is the welfare
of the owners, 3rd is the welfare of the veterinarian, and 4th is
the welfare of the breeders”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated:
“Purebred breeding
methods replace nature’s role and condemn purebred dogs to
live with health problems. It is irrefutable that these defects
cause pain and suffering to the dogs that bear them. Dog breeding
principles do not provide beneficence to the dogs; on the contrary,
they result in many injustices to them. Deliberate
manipulation of a dog’s genome, the essence of its life, is
an extreme violation of its autonomy. As veterinarians,
we are responsible for both owner and patient interests, and it
is clear that purebred breeding methods compromise the welfare of
both parties”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman stated: “Breeders
may be very attached to their breed of dog and will not enjoy negative
commentary. Current breed standards
give breeders financial incentive to continue inbreeding and until
breed standards are amended, it may be difficult to convince breeders
otherwise. However, no matter how great the breeder’s
financial reward for producing purebred dogs, our primary duty as
veterinarians should be the improvement of our patient’s welfare
and in meeting the needs of the owners, even if it compromises the
breeders’ business. Similarly, veterinarians must not allow
the financial contribution of purebred health issues to outweigh
the welfare of their patients and clients”. (Arnan,
2007)

Dr Arman concluded: “The
high frequency of genetic disease that has developed in purebred
dogs over the last century has resulted in the desensitization of
society and veterinarians to the resultant welfare issues to such
an extent that the production of anatomically deformed dogs are
not shocking nor considered abnormal.Change will occur
when there are financial incentives.
There are currently no market forces to dissuade the breeding of
dogs that require caesarean births, because both breeders and veterinarians
benefit financially. Change
needs to begin at the level of the consumer, because when public
awareness of purebred dog welfare increases, consumer dissatisfaction
will demand improvements from the industry, and breeders will be
economically motivated to comply”.
(Arnan K,
‘A new direction for kennel club regulations and breed standards’,
Can Vet J, 48(9), 2007)

Dr Robert Mahr (DVM), a Congressional
honoured veterinarian wrote to an American journal Editor in protest,
which was published as follows: ‘Believes Bulldog design
is inhumane’. “On the cover of the May 1,
2007, JAVMA, there were five English
Bulldogs. I believe that this
breed is a sorry example of humans' inhumanity to dogs through breeding.
I don't think that dogs of this breed belonged on the cover of the
official journal of our national association, which is supposed to
be dedicated to relieving animal's suffering and improving animal
and human health. I believe that this
breed is inhumane. In
view of the oath we have taken as veterinarians, I believe we
must stop this inhumane designing of our companion animals and think
of the loveable dog that must live its life under these conditions”.
(Letters to the Editor, Robert
L Mahr, J Am Vet Med Assoc, 233(5), 2008)

Dr Robert Mahr (DVM), a Congressional
honoured veterinarian wrote to an American journal Editor in protest,
which was published as follows: ‘Believes Bulldog design
is inhumane’. “On the cover of the May 1,
2007, JAVMA, there were five English
Bulldogs. I believe that this
breed is a sorry example of humans' inhumanity to dogs through breeding.
I don't think that dogs of this breed belonged on the cover of the
official journal of our national association, which is supposed to
be dedicated to relieving animal's suffering and improving animal
and human health. I believe that this
breed is inhumane. In
view of the oath we have taken as veterinarians, I believe we
must stop this inhumane designing of our companion animals and think
of the loveable dog that must live its life under these conditions”.
(Letters to the Editor, Robert
L Mahr, J Am Vet Med Assoc, 233(5), 2008)

Dr Patty Khuly
(DVM) in response to the above, stated: “In many
ways I couldn’t agree more and the problem isn’t confined
to bulldogs. The
English
bulldog
is probably the world’s most egregious example of breeding
for canine unthriftiness”.We all know other breeds that raise similar concerns.“Nothing
beats an English bulldog for its intentionally diseased conformation!”
Dr Khuly lists a few traits that bulldogs are specifically bred
for:

1. “Chondrodystrophic
conformation (dwarfism),
in which limbs are intentionally shortened and rotated and the skull
is disproportionately enlarged. The
consequences of this deformation process include joint disease (almost
uniformly present), spinal malformation (very common), extremely
difficult natural delivery of pups (extremely common), and the production
of skin folds that lead to severe, chronic skin disease (also very
common). Bulldogs
are also genetically predisposed to allergies
through irresponsible breeding practices”.

2. “Brachycephalic
conformation (short-snoutedness),
in which the skull is compressed. Respiratory
and dental malformations are a necessary consequence of breeding
for this trait. Tissue folds accumulate in the upper airway, leading
to overlong soft palates (a flap of tissue that occludes the opening
of the larynx), heat intolerance, stenotic nares (tight nostrils),
tiny windpipes and sometimes even more catastrophic internal diseases
(like hiatal hernias, the result of all the huffing and puffing
they have to do to get enough oxygen to their lungs”.

”Both
of these built-in major malfunctions also lead to a greater than
average susceptibility to a wide variety of diseases.
And then there are all the diseases so common to English
bulldogs:allergic skin disease, intervertebral disc disease, dry
eye, gastrointestinal sensitivity and dietary intolerances,
among many others”. Is it any wonder that
a veterinarian is concerned about the inescapable realities of building
dogs for conformational extremes?

“Those veterinarians
deeply devoted to animal welfare principles (an increasing percentage
of us) are rightfully starting to speak out about not just the ear
crops and the declaws we do to animals once they are alive, but
also the very act of building such an inhumane body for the animals
we have taken an oath to protect and care for. Knowing that we intentionally
build dogs to suffer like this, I have to ask, is it fair?”
(Khuly P, ‘Bullishly
inhumane by design? On bulldog breeding and welfare’, Stanford
Wellsphere, 30 Sept, 2008)

Dr Frederico
Camboli (PhD), a geneticist in the Department of Epidemiology,
at Imperial College in London, and Dr Jeff Sampson,
a molecular biologist, formerly with Leicester University, now U.K.
Kennel Club Canine Genetics Co-ordinator, are researching genetics
of pedigree dogs to understand canine genetic diseases to enhance
their welfare. They utilised the world’s most extensive resources
for canine population-genetics studies: the Kennel Club registration
database, chose ten representative breeds and analysed their pedigrees
since electronic records were established in 1970, corresponding
to about eight generations before the present and investigated population
structure directly, without genotyping, to assess levels of inbreeding
and population structure.

Drs Camboli and Sampson
stated: “Dog breeds are required to conform to
a breed standard, the pursuit of which often involves intensive
inbreeding. Dog breeding patterns can be driven by stud value assessed
when shown and by conformance to breed standards. The breeding programs
implemented by dog breeders, including use of ‘popular’
sires, could lead to cryptic population structure. Bulldogs
show high levels of inbreeding. A low proportion of genetic diversity
is retained under strong inbreeding and has adverse consequences
in terms of loss of genetic variability and high prevalence of recessive
genetic disorders. This raises concerns about canine welfare”.
(Camboli F et al, ‘Population
Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs’,
Genetics, 2008)

Drs Camboli and Sampson
concluded: “Dog
registration rules have been rigidly enforced only for 50 years.
Prior to that occasional out-crossing was still possible. Loss of
genetic variation, with many breeds losing greater than 90% of singleton
variants in just six generations, has adverse consequences for canine
health and fertility.Remedial
action to increase genetic diversity should now be a high priority
in the interests of the health of purebred dogs. Possible remedial
action includes limits on the use of popular sires; encouragement
of matings across national and continental boundaries; and the relaxation
of breed rules to permit controlled out-crossing”.
(Camboli F
et al, ‘Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree
Analysis of Purebred Dogs’, Genetics, 179(1), 2008)

Dr Andreas Steiger (PhD), Professor
of Animal Welfare in the Veterinary Medicine Faculty, Institute of
Domestic Animal Genetics, Dept of Animal Husbandry and Welfare, University
of Bern, Switzerland expressed concerns with the welfare of extreme
breeds of dogs. Citing the Council of Europe Resolution on the Breeding
of Pet Animals, the Declaration of Intent of the International Dog
Breeding Organisations and the Resolution of the Federation of Veterinarians
of Europe, he stated that: “Legislation
and other measures to avoid breeding animals with extreme characteristics
is necessary and it is important that breeding organisations adapt
breeding standards and improve the education of judges and breeders”.(Steiger A et al, Schweiz
Arch Tierheilkd, 150(5), 2008)

Dr Andrew
Higgins (BVetMed, MSc, PhD, FIBiol, MRCVS), Editor-in-Chief
of Veterinary Journal and previously, for a decade, Scientific Director
of the Animal Health Trust, UK, and Dr Frank Nicholas
(BSc, PhD) stated: “A BBC television
documentary, ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’,
shown at prime time August 2008, was hard hitting, highlighting
inter alia, bulldogs
bred in such a way that most can no longer give birth unassisted.
The programme’s message can be summarised in the words of
the RSPCA’s Chief Veterinary Adviser: ‘the welfare and
quality of life of many pedigree dogs is seriously compromised by
established breeding practices for appearance, driven primarily
by rules and requirements of competitive dog showing and pedigree
dog registration’.(Higgins
A, Nicholas F, ‘The breeding of pedigree dogs: time for strong
leadership’, Editorial, Vet J, 178(2), 2008)

Drs Higgins and Nicholas stated:
“The British Veterinary Association commented
that this was an exposé of the very worst elements of pedigree
dog breeding, but stressed that it continued to work closely with
the Kennel Club in developing canine health schemes and supporting
the significant amount of genetics research funded by the Kennel
Club’s Charitable Trust. The study by Calboli et al (2008)
was enabled by the Kennel Club, as a reflection of its on-going
commitment to genetics research and its desire to secure a scientific
platform to obtain breeder support to increase genetic diversity.
However, it has become increasingly clear that there are issues
that need to be urgently addressed now. Recommendations for practical
solutions were proposed by McGreevy and Nicholas (1999) nearly 10
years ago.
(Higgins & Nicholas, 2008)

Drs Higgins and Nicholas
stated: “Of
course many of the members and governance personnel of the Kennel
Club are pedigree dog breeders. It is right therefore to pause and
consider the extent to which welfare may have become subordinated
to certain breed practices. It is not difficult to see how, after
generations of owners have spent years focusing on the morphology
of their dogs, some find it hard to see the proverbial wood for
the trees. Breed standards can easily become entrenched in the minds
of breeders, buyers and fanciers, as well as those (often interested
parties) who are involved in the judging (and so promotion) of a
breed and its ‘established’ characteristics”.
(Higgins & Nicholas F, 2008)

Drs Higgins and Nicholas stated:
“As Paul McGreeveycommented (New Scientist,
11 October 2008), ‘the best dog breeders are very good at what they
do – the problem is that what they currently do is not very
good’.The problems created by some
breed standards are very serious and have major welfare implications
and the mating of close relatives remains genetically undesirable.
Some animals still result from
matings of first-degree relatives, and a strong case can be made
for the Kennel Club to stop registering the progeny of such matings”.(Higgins &
Nicholas, 2008)

Drs Higgins and
Nicholas concluded: “Breeders and regulators
have no choice but to make the welfare of the dog paramount. This
means that breed standards must be reviewed scientifically and rationally
as a matter of the utmost priority. Welfare charities, veterinary
associations and dog breeders must unite in using the latest advances
in genetics and epidemiology to find a new model of dog-breeding
practice. Change
will take time and will require difficult negotiation, which may
be a real challenge for the Kennel Club in UK and other breed standard
regulators around the world. However, it is a challenge that must
be addressed or governments, under public pressure, are likely to
get involved and impose legislation to protect the health and welfare
of man’s favourite companion”.
(Higgins A, Nicholas F, ‘The breeding of pedigree dogs: time
for strong leadership’, Editorial, Vet J, 178(2), 2008)

Dr Lucy Asher (BSc, PhD),
research associate, Centre for Animal Welfare, Dept of Veterinary
Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Herts, UK, and
associates (Diesel G, Summers J, McGreevy P & Collins L) stated:
“The United Kingdom pedigree-dog industry has faced criticism
because certain aspects of dog conformation stipulated in the UK
Kennel Club breed standards have a detrimental impact on dog welfare.
A review of conformation-related disorders was carried out in the
top 50 UK Kennel Club registered breeds, using systematic searches.
A novel index to score severity of disorders along a single scale
was also developed and used to conduct statistical analyses to determine
the factors affecting reported breed predisposition to defects”.(Asher L et al, ‘Inherited
defects in Pedigree Dogs. Part 1: disorders related to breed standards’,
Vet J, 182(3), 2009)

Dr Asher et al stated: “Appearance matters
in the pedigree dog industry. Pedigree dogs are selected to conform
to published breed guidelines that are open to interpretation and
dogs that best meet their breed’s standards are rewarded in
the show ring. Conformational
breed-associated defects were recognised as early as 1868 by Charles
Darwin. To date, research has primarily considered inherited
disorders in isolation. For example, an elongated soft palate is
associated with a shortened muzzle and entropion is linked with
skin folds around the eye. However, to be able to make informed
decisions about the impact on dog welfare of conforming to breed
standards, interdisorder comparisons are necessary to bring together
clinical and epidemiological research”.(Asher
et al, 2009)

Dr Asher et al stated: “In
the top 50 breeds, a total of 396 inherited disorders were identified
from the literature and other sources searched. Each of the top
50 breeds was found to have at least one aspect of its conformation
predisposing it to a disorder; and 84 disorders were either directly
or indirectly associated with conformation. German shepherd dogs
were reported to be predisposed to the greatest number of inherited
disorders overall. Miniature poodles were reported to be predisposed
to the most conformational related disorders, followed by the Pug,
Bulldog and Basset hound”. Table
1. The
Bulldog totals 42 disorders. (Asher
et al, 2009)

Dr Asher et
al stated: under the heading ‘Conformation-related
conditions’.
“According to the literature searched, the
Miniature poodle, Bulldog,
Pug and Basset hound had most associations with conformation-related
disorders. Skull shape
affected the respiratory disorders to which breeds were predisposed.
Brachycephalic (bulldog-type) breeds had more respiratory disorders.
Many conditions
have been linked with the brachycephalic head shape, including stenotic
nares, an elongated soft palate and hypoplastic trachea. Brachycephalic
airway obstruction syndrome (BAOS)
is a combination of these conditions with a wide range of severity.
Breeds predisposed to this condition include Bulldogs”.
(Asher
et al, 2009)

Dr Asher et al stated: “The
large head to pelvis ratio in certain brachycephalic breeds (eg
the Bulldog)
is linked with dystocia. Reduced cranial cavity size is associated
with the potentially severe neurological conditions. Conditions
associated with small body size and particularly small leg size,
include odontoid process dysplasia, shoulder dysplasia, and patellar
luxation, which latter can cause lameness, likely to be underreported
because luxation may occur only during exercise. Cervical vertebral
instability is linked with heavy heads and has been reported in
12 of the top 50 breeds. Type 1 cervical intervertebral disc disease
is linked with chondrodystrophic breeds (eg the Bulldog)
and is caused by abnormal cartilage growth in the nucleus pulposus.
Conditions such as hemivertebrae and spina bifida are associated
with selection for screw and curly tail shapes”.(Asher et al,
2009)

Dr Asher et al
stated: “Many disorders
relate to wrinkled skin or excessive skin folds. Dermatitis and
pyoderma may not be severe conditions, but they are often recurrent
or chronic in nature. Skin-fold dermatitis has a high reported prevalence
in Bulldogs.
Skin folds may be stipulated in breed standards directly or arise
indirectly from the requirement for a brachycephalic skull shape,
or corkscrew tails. Entropion and ectropion are conditions of high
prevalence in the Bulldog
and can co-occur such that the central lower lid is ectropic while
at the corners the lid is entropic (producing diamond-shaped eyes).
Conformational complications that can affect the normal eyelid structure
include a visible third eyelid or a drooping lower eyelid. Two related
conditions are trichiasis, with nasal folds or droopy eyelids, and
eversion of nictitating membrane, with facial folds and a distinctive
stop”.(Asher
et al, 2009)

Dr Asher et al stated: under
the heading ‘Inherited
disorders indirectly linked to conformation’.“Uterine inertia
is linked with dystocia. It is exaggerated in breeds with heads
that are comparatively large for their body size (eg Bulldogs),
since more uterine force is required to expel the puppies.
Black or dark brown hair follicular dysplasia and colour dilution
alopecia are caused by irregular pigment clumping, which results
in areas of weakness. The piebald, extreme white, and merle coat
colourations and, often associated, hypopigmentation of the iris
are all linked with a series of co-occurring nervous-sensory conditions,
including sensorineural deafness, iris atrophy, and microphthalmia,
so that dogs with lighter eyes or coats are more likely to be deaf.
Also reportedly related to colouration and dilution are urate urolithiasis
and cyclic neutropenia”.
(Asher et al, 2009)

Dr Asher et al concluded:
“Every popular pedigree-dog
breed has some aspect of its physical conformation that predisposes
it to a disorder. By selecting for appearance rather than health,
many have become predisposed to health problems. Some breed standards
encourage breeders to select for dogs predisposed to disease.
Whilst immediate action is clearly needed, the long-term approach
must include furthering our understanding of the relations between
physical conformation and inherited disorders. The association of
some of these conditions with official breed standards and the high
maintenance implications of some
breed features make conformational extremes an area which needs
to be addressed to safeguard the welfare of pedigree dogs in the
future”.(Asher
L et al, ‘Inherited defects in Pedigree Dogs. Part 1: disorders
related to breed standards’, Vet J, 182(3), 2009)

[This
paper won the George Fleming Prize for 2009, in
commemoration of the founder of The Veterinary Journal]

Dr Nicola
Rooney (PhD) at the Anthrozoology Institute, Dept of Clinical
Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, UK, stated: “Ethical
questions have been posed many times, yet the veterinary profession
have become desensitised to the welfare issues to such an extent
that the production of anatomically deformed dogs, and I add, dogs
heavily predisposed to illnesses, is neither shocking, nor considered
abnormal. In August 2008, this was partially redressed when the
BBC aired a documentary titled ‘‘Pedigree Dogs
Exposed’’. It featured key experts and although
criticised by some as sensational and unbalanced, the repercussions
of have been far reaching: several sponsors withdrew support from
the Crufts dog show, and the BBC did not televise the show in 2009.
The documentary has served to bring an incredibly important issue
into the limelight and to raise public awareness”.
(Rooney N, ‘The welfare of pedigree dogs: Cause for concern’,
Editorial, J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res, 4(5), 2009)

Dr Rooney stated: “The
phenomenon of heterosis (hybrid vigour) means that purebreds naturally
show less vigour than outbred individuals. Current breeding practices
have exaggerated this effect.
Today, pedigree dogs appearing in conventional breed shows are required
to conform to written breed standards, which in the United
Kingdom are owned by the Kennel Club and derived in consultation
with several hundred breed societies. Although the vast majority
of pedigree dogs will never appear in a show, many
dogs are bred by breeders aspiring to produce show-quality animals
and whose surplus dogs are sold as pets. Therefore,
trends in the show-dog breeding community have major implications
for the domestic dog population at large, and decisions made by
a minority of breeders have considerable repercussions for the pet-owning
public”.(Rooney,
2009)

Dr Rooney stated: “Trends
in the breeding of specific breeds have often led to the accentuation
of what are perceived, by some, to be desirable traits. In
some cases, physical features have been exaggerated to such an extent
that they severely limit dog’s quality of life and are likely
to cause pain and suffering. The fact that the veterinary literature
describes a whole suite of palliative and surgical procedures developed
explicitly to counteract these effects is evidence that the problems
are of welfare concern.Features
that have the potential to cause suffering should be actively selected
against, not simply avoided. Decisions on which have the most potential
to cause suffering requires range of specialists from various disciplines
independent of vested interest in the breeds involved”.
(Rooney, 2009)

Dr Rooney stated:
“The effects of selective
breeding for appearance includes very significantly reduced genetic
diversity unevenly spread across the genome. Coupled
with ill-advised breeding practices, whereby breeders inadvertently
select regions of the genome that contain a disorder as well as
the trait they actually desire, this has led to certain breeds becoming
especially susceptible to a whole suite of disorders, many of which
are acutely painful or chronically debilitating. Selective breeding
has contributed to this situation. A dog
can be registered with the UK Kennel Club only if the sire and dam
are registered members of that breed’s studbook. Hence dog
breeds each represent a closed gene pool, and the Kennel Club, breed
societies, and the pedigree dog–showing community have formally
endorsed the inbreeding of dogs”.(Rooney,
2009)

Dr Rooney stated:“The
link between inbreeding and increased disease risks in purebred
dogs is well established. In most, if not all dog breeds,
genetic diversity is low. There is consequently an increased chance
of inherited disorders being manifest in offspring, and it is difficult
to eliminate problems without breeding to members of another breed
(out-breeding), which is currently banned. Selection for exaggerated
features has resulted in dogs that are anatomically restricted and
hence unable to behave normally. For example, severely reduced limb
lengths may restrict dwarf dogs’ ability to run freely; and
breeds with respiratory deformities (e.g., brachycephalic breeds)
may be prevented from running without shortness of breath”.
(Rooney, 2009)

Dr Rooney stated:
“In brachycephalic
breeds, the skull has been selected to be shortened from
front to back, which can restrict the flow of air through the nose.
Combined with a comparatively elongated soft palate, this shortened
skull can create breathing difficulties and render the dog unable
to lead an active life without respiratory distress. Surgical
opening of the nostrils is almost routine, and soft palate resection
is common. There are many further exaggerated features, including
excessive skin folds and screw tails.
The English
bulldog
is a regularly cited example of these morphological extremes and
is noted to have locomotion difficulties, breathing problems, an
inability to mate or give birth without assistance and physical
and surgical interventions”.
(Rooney, 2009)

Dr Rooney stated:
“Over the past 130 years, specific physical attributes
have been selected for preferentially in many breeds, without sufficient
attention to health, temperament, welfare, and functionality. This
practice has resulted in two distinct, but interrelated welfare
issues:

1. Morphological extremes:
anatomical abnormalities that result directly in reduced quality
of life.

2. Increased prevalence
of inherited disorders as a result of lack of genetic diversity,
inbreeding and line breeding and breeding with over-attention to
physical attributes rather than improved health and welfare.

Dr Frederique Bernaerts (DVM),
Dept of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University
of Liège, Belgium, stated: “An
upper respiratory tract disease known as ‘brachycephalic
airway obstruction syndrome’ has been described in
brachycephalic dogs. Purebred English Bulldogs are
the most commonly encountered breed. The obstruction results from
a variety of problems, such as stenotic nares, elongated soft palate,
redundant pharyngeal folds and hypoplastic trachea, as well as secondary
changes, including everted laryngeal saccules, laryngeal collapse
and aspiration pneumonia. Passage through the nasal
cavities accounts for 76.5% of total airway resistance and anatomy
of the turbinates may contribute to stenosis in brachycephalic dogs.
Indeed, a nasal resistance measured by rhinomanometry of six times
higher than normal Beagles has been demonstrated inBulldogs,
where partial collapse of the
bronchus is a common finding not previously described, as are epiglottic
cysts, laryngeal granulomas and nasopharyngeal turbinates”.(Bernaerts F et al, Vet
J, 183(1), 2010)

Brachycephalic
airway obstruction syndrome

Endoscopic
view of the markedly reduced diameter of the left main bronchus
in an English bulldog

Brachycephalic
airway obstruction syndrome

Retrograde rhinoscopic view of obstructed nasopharyngeal turbinates
in an English bulldog

Dr Frank Nicholas
(BSc, PhD), Professor Emeritus with the Faculty of Veterinary Science,
University of Sydney, Australia, heads the Inherited Disorders Research
Team, which includes Dr Clare Wade (PhD), Associate
Professor of Animal Genetics and Computational Biology, and
Dr Peter Williamson (BSc, PhD), Associate Professor of
Genomics. In a Veterinary Journal ‘Guest Editorial’,
Dr Nicholas et al stated: “Although the August
2008 screening in the UK of the BBC Television documentary ‘Pedigree
Dogs Exposed’ exaggerated the extent and consequences
of inbreeding in pedigree dogs, it made many telling points in relation
to breed standards”.(Nicholas
F et al, Guest Editorial, ‘Disorders in pedigree dogs: Assembling
the evidence’, Vet J, 183(1), 2010)

Drs Nicholas et al
stated: “The Kennel Club (UK) responded
across the board: between October 2008 and January 2009, all breed
standards were reviewed, resulting in interim changes to the standards
of 78 of the 209 breeds under its control. Following widespread
consultation, the KC’s
revised breed standards became official on 1st October 2009.Importantly, each revised standard
now starts with a general statement advising breeders and judges
that they ‘should at all times be careful to avoid obvious
conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way
to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed’. Also,
breeders and judges are encouraged to report any perceived problems
to a new ‘Breed Watch’ section of the Kennel Club’s
website”. (Nicholas
et al, 2010)

Dr Nicholas stated:
“How can further progress in relation to breed standards
best be achieved? An obvious requirement is for a thorough investigation
of the clinical implications of breed standards. In Australia, at
a public Pedigree Dogs Forum, organised by the Veterinary Science
for Animal Welfare Society of the University of Sydney, held in
the Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney on 24th
September 2009, following the screening of the BBC documentary in
Australia, the President of the Australian National Kennel Council,
Hugh Gent, stated that he would ‘do everything in his power
to facilitate changes to any breed standard that can be shown scientifically
to compromise the welfare of dogs’. This is a very constructive
challenge to veterinary scientists and others who are in a position
to assemble such evidence”. (Nicholas
et al, 2010)

Dr Nicholas
concluded: “Recent work by the Ascher and Summers group
(at the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary
College, Herts, UK) will assist in prioritising disorders for further
research and examining the potential effectiveness of any genetic
control programme that may be contemplated. Fortunately, there is
a readily-available strategy for decreasing the occurrence of such
disorders in a particular kennel, namely avoiding the mating of
known relatives. The papers by Asher et al (2009) and Summers et
al (2010) provide a welcome contribution to the literature on an
emotive and important subject. Their extensive documentation of
inherited disorders in dogs provides a solid foundation for highlighting
and prioritising breed standards that require further modification.
The initiative is to be commended. (Nicholas
F et al, Guest Editorial, ‘Disorders in pedigree dogs: Assembling
the evidence’, Vet J, 183(1), 2010)

Katy Evans (BVSc, CertVA, MRCVS)
and Vicki Adams (BSc, DVM, MSc, PhD, MRCVS) of the
Animal Health Trust, Suffolk, who conducted a study
of the frequency of occurrence of caesarean sections in a large sample
of pedigree dogs in the UK stated: “The
Bulldog is the only breed in the top five requiring
both emergency and elective caesarean section, with a caesarean section
birth rate greater than 80%”. (Evans
K, Adams V, ‘Proportion of litters of purebred dogs born by
caesarean section’ J Small Anim Pract, 51(12), 2010)

Dr
Danika Bannasch (DVM, PhD), Associate Professor of Veterinary
Genetics in the Dept of Population Health and Reproduction, School
of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis, stated:
“Each dog breed is defined by a specific combination of morphological
traits. Some of the phenotypic traits are associated with medical
problems. Brachycephaly
is one of the traits that cause dramatic morphological changes,
characterized by severe shortening of the muzzle, and therefore
the underlying bones, and a more modest shortening and widening
of the skull (eg the Bulldog).
Brachycephaly is associated with a number of medical conditions,
including breathing abnormalities, cleft palate and lip and (in
the Bulldog),
also increased risk of gliomas (brain tumors)”.(Bannasch
D et al, Localization of Canine Brachycephaly Using an Across Breed
Mapping Approach, PloS ONE 5(3), 2010)

Dr Bannasch stated:“Despite
these serious medical issues, brachycephalic head type dogs have
been favored for hundreds of years due to the similarity of their
skull shape to that of human infants. With the use of artificial
insemination and Caesarean sections that allowed brachycephalic
breeds to reproduce (artificially), selection for more extreme versions
of this phenotype occurred at the time that the breeds were artificially
created and as a result, brachycephaly is now a semi-dominant trait,
since phenotypic sharing
between breeds ceased around 100 years ago when breed standards
were fixed and stud books closed.
Two candidate genes for brachycephaly have been identified and regulatory
mutations in either could lead to the brachycephalic phenotype”.
(Bannasch
D et al, Localization of Canine Brachycephaly Using an Across Breed
Mapping Approach, PloS ONE 5(3), 2010)

Jennifer Summers
(MSc, PhD candidate) and the previously cited Asher team
associates (Asher L, Diesel G, McGreevy P & Collins L) at the
Royal Veterinary College stated: “In this second part
of a two-part review, inherited disorders which show no link to
conformation were researched in the top 50 UK Kennel Club registered
breeds. Pedigree dogs have been bred to conform to published aesthetic,
but not health-based, standards using closed stud books, selective
breeding and the repeated use of popular sires. Such breeding practices
have increased the expression of inherited defects and compromised
the health and welfare of many breeds”. (Summers
J et al, ‘Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 2: Disorders
that are not related to breed standards’, Vet J, 183(1), 2010)

Summers et al stated: “The
UK Kennel Club (KC) was established in 1873 in response to the growing
popularity of exhibiting dogs in organised shows. At that time a
stud book was produced as a register of dogs considered to be good
breeding stock. Concerns have been raised regarding the level of
inbreeding from this original small pool of breeding dogs and subsequent
deleterious health effects within canine pedigree breed groups.
The inheritance of genetic diseases can be controlled by a single
gene (monogenic conditions) or several genes (polygenic conditions).
There are four forms of single gene inheritance: (1) autosomal recessive;
(2) autosomal dominant; (3) X-linked recessive, and (4) X-linked
dominant”.
(Summers et al, 2010)

Summers et al stated:
“For a dog to present with clinical signs of an autosomal
recessive disease, two copies of the recessive allele must usually
be present at a particular gene locus on a non-sex chromosome. Autosomal
dominant diseases or traits will present clinically when only a
single copy of the gene is present on a given chromosome. Polygenic
inheritance is transmission of those conditions or traits whose
clinical expression is controlled by several genes and, often, additional
environmental influences. Reduced heterozygosity of a highly inbred
population can contribute to the frequency of occurrence of inherited
disease in the population as the likelihood of inheriting two recessive
gene alleles (recessively transmitted disorders) is also increased”.
(Summers et al, 2010)

Summers et al stated: “In
the creation of a breed, an important issue is the ‘fixing’
of desirable features so that an exclusive group of dogs will breed
true to type, reliably displaying the features preferred by the
breeder. Fixed features are maintained by selective breeding of
registered animals. Selection can be made simply on the basis of
the phenotypes of individual prospective parents or with additional
reference to the familial traits of potential parents’ relatives.
In many breeds the former approach has led to the relative overuse
of popular sires. Certain popular, usually
champion stud dogs are used extensively and to the exclusion of
other registered males, so effectively reducing the number of sires
represented in the closed studbook of a particular breed. The effect
of ‘fixing’ and the use of popular sires on modern breed
gene pools has raised concern”. (Summers
et al, 2010)

Summers et al concluded:“In the top 50 breeds, of a total of 396 disorders, 312
were non-conformational (D), emerging without a link to specific
physical attributes specified in the breed standards and inherently
unpredictable mutations occurring throughout the genome. The majority
display autosomal recessive transmission (71%), followed by autosomal
dominant (11%), X-linked (10%) and polygenic (4%). The UK, German
shepherd dogs were predisposed to the greatest number of D disorders
(58), followed by the Golden retriever (50) and Boxer (45). The
Bulldog had only half that of the top five (24),
but 8 times that of the lowest, the Bordeaux (3)”.
(Summers J et al, ‘Inherited
defects in pedigree dogs. Part 2: Disorders that are not related
to breed standards’, Vet J, 183(1), 2010)

Remarkably, the
Bulldog had nearly twice as many conformation disorders as non-conformation
disorders, indicating the considerable potential to improve the
Bulldog’s welfare of via reform of the official standard.

This
concludes my review of the published scientific veterinary literature
to date (1st Edn April 2010) on the subject of the health and welfare
of pedigree dogs, the Bulldog in particular. I have restricted myself
to the peer-reviewed literature and limited commentary, to the exclusion
of the lay press and public interest material and which former,
the non-scientists that are my primary readership target are unlikely
to access successfully to the same extent that I have taken the
trouble to do in order to form an entirely objective opinion on
this important subject.

I have corresponded
with most of the author’s of and read in their entirely most
of the papers and book chapters cited herein, most of which researcher’s
have personally encouraged my efforts to bring the results of their
research and also their appeals for urgent evidence-based reform
to a wider audience, and in particular the pedigree dog registry,
conformation dog show and breeder and cash-cow veterinary fraternities,
who as a whole are shamefully responsible for this appalling state
of affairs, and without this humble contribution, would carry on
regardless.

In particular,
I wish to thank Mrs Julia van Rooyen, Chairlady of the South African
Bulldog Club (member, Roseneath Bulldogs); Dr Roy Williams, Chairman,
Millennium Bulldog Club (member, Mervander Bulldogs); Mr Neil S.
Kay (KUSA judge, Convenor of the National Judging Sub Committee
and KUSA spin-doctor; and also Mr Greg Eva, KUSA President and judge,
all of whom have spurred me on in my efforts by actively turning
a blind eye to the shame of their actions and thwarting my
efforts to cast light into their and other’s darkness.

An e-mail thread
with Mr Eva on this topic is posted as a downloadable file on my
website here: www.gaiaresearch.co.za/bbkusacorrespondence.pdf and will be updated as and when Mr Eva, on behalf of the
Kennel Union of South Africa, has the decency to respond appropriately
to my troublesome queries and legitimate demands. This thread, originally
between Mr Eva and I, was progressively expanded to include more
and more role-players as my efforts were frustrated and is being
made available in its entirety as a public domain name and shame
service to all bulldogs.

What I find particularly
shameful is that Dr Williams, on behalf of Mervander Bulldogs, as
far as I am aware, the only veterinarian on my e-mail list of role-players
for this thread, which includes all of the bulldog breeders that
I know of, was the only recipient to cowardly request removal of
their e-mail address from my distribution list on this topic, presumably
to insulate themselves as major culprits, from criticism of their
own role in this shameful matter. Dr Williams, a prominent veterinarian,
ought to better respect the oaths taken by veterinarians the world
over.

The obligation
of veterinarians is to “protect the health and well-being
of animals and animal populations” and “not
permit himself to be exploited in a manner which may be detrimental
to an animal” (South African Veterinary Council Mission
Statement and Rules); and “protect and promote the health
and welfare of animals” (South African Veterinary Association
Credo). Clearly Dr Williams’ role as a veterinarian and a
key member of Mervander Kennels, the largest English bulldog puppy
farm in South Africa, represents rather severe conflicts of interest.

I make this
assumption in good faith after having received an e-mail from Dr
Williams requesting that I remove Mervander Bulldogs from my e-mail
list. Considering their statement on the Mervander website at the
time that “We totally reject the new interim standard
approved by the Kennel Club”, I replied as follows: “Please
take cognisance of the fact that I am holding you, your fellow breeders
and the KUSA collectively responsible for the ruination and continuing
unnecessary long-term suffering of the English Bulldog breed in
South Africa. Seeing as these communications serve as notice to
all parties to this matter, I regret that I cannot remove you from
the distribution list at this time, since that would serve only
to unfairly prejudice you and furthermore would be unconstitutional.
Ignore the content if you will, but to no avail, other than to prejudice
yourselves, since you are hereby being served regarding both my
contentions and my intentions and it is clearly in your own interests
to keep abreast of developments. Perhaps rather than attempting
to avoid the issue that you in great measure have created, you might
instead participate in constructive debate and so assist in the
timeous resolution of the rather vexing ethical issues arising from
this matter”.

I note with
interest that Mervander have subsequently somewhat altered course,
now stating:

TO
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

For
more than 60 years, Mervander has been dedicated to the breeding
of healthy Bulldogs and will always support any honest attempt
to improve the health of the breed. We will support efforts
to eliminate any excessive characteristics as well as deformities
like wry jaws, fiddle fronts and sway backs. We consider excessive
skin wrinkling, ectropion, entropion and congenital lameness
as explicit hereditary health problems which must be eradicated
from the breed completely.

Clearly some guidance
as per this report is timeous if their 60 years has merely produced
the long-suffering modern English bulldog. To claim to have been
breeding “healthy” bulldogs is absolute nonsense. As
witnessed by my evidence-based report, there is no such thing as
a “healthy bulldog”, not yet, and by rejecting the amended
standard, the South African bulldog breeding fraternity will simply
never progress to this noble end. The modern pedigreed English bulldog
is a barely walking, breathing and reproducing, yet extraordinary
repository of genetic afflictions, a cruel, shameful self-indulgence
by ignorant human beings, not worthy of that title.

As with Mervander,
so too my disgust with KUSA’s Messrs Neil Kay and Greg Eva.
I cannot ask that the “Lord forgive them since they know
not what they do”! They cannot be so ignorant of the
breeds they administer. In any event, they cannot now, having had
sight of this report, continue to justify+- + their perverse warped
sense of perfection on another generation of English bulldogs, yet
this is what all breeders in South Africa intend to and are condemned
to do, if Mr Neil Kay and the KUSA President, Mr Greg Eva, have
their way in pandering to these breeders.

Against my unequivocally
substantiated evidence-based report, Mr Kay served up and Mr Eva
permitted the following deliberate unconscionable misinformation
to the gullible KUSA faithful:

“Newspapers
of course love an animal story, and so often print emotional and
totally untrue accounts of the lives endured by so-called exaggerated
breeds of dogs”; “Bulldogs of course are the prime target”;
“All very sad, and in the majority of cases untrue. Breed
features can be pounced on by an uninformed press and condemned
in lucid terms”; “We must be aware of public opinions
fuelled by sensational newspaper articles and by various ‘anti’
organisations”; “Having seen a
‘new’ standard proposal for Bulldogs, which quite frankly
is horrendous, the NJSC (instructed by the president
to investigate the whole matter of breed standards and possible
exaggerations caused by interpretation by judges) realize just how
important judges education is in facing up to the irrational emotions
regarding breed features”. (Neil
Kay, ‘The Future of Pedigree Dogs, A Cause For Concern’,
KUSA Dogs in Africa, February 2010)

My attempts to
get KUSA President, Mr Greg Eva to clarify the delay in implementing
the U.K. Kennel Club’s amended standard for the English bulldog
(adopted in October 2009 in the UK), and urgently charter its implementation
in South Africa were not well-received and now elicits not even
the courtesy of acknowledgements. I have posted that rather long
and largely one-sided string of e-mail communication here: www.gaiaresearch.co.za/bbkusacorrespondence.pdf for interested public consumption.